Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Thursday 26 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

British Horticulture

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the future of British horticulture.[155678]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government attach great importance to the future of our horticulture industry. We assist the sector through a programme of strategic research and development, costing about £10.8 million in the current year. In addition, new schemes launched under the England rural development programme will provide opportunities for the horticulture industry to improve its competitiveness.

Mr. Brady: Does the Minister agree that, at a time of crisis in the rural economy, the 30 per cent. of agricultural employment provided by horticulture is more important than ever? Does she also agree that the proposed increase in fees by the Pesticides Safety Directorate from £470 to £1,285 for specific off-label approval will be a damaging additional burden for horticulture, and will cause the sort of research and development expenditure to which she referred to be scaled back?

Ms Quin: We are looking at that issue. I am certainly keen to ensure that the horticulture industry does not bear increased burdens at such a difficult time for agriculture generally. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the increased potential for horticulture in this country. Although much of the fruit, for example, that is imported could not be grown here, we could grow many of the vegetables that at present we import. There is therefore

considerable potential, and the Government are working actively with the industry to identify a range of opportunities for expansion.

Mr. John Grogan: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Yorkshire's horticultural growers who, with support from all around the country, have created and funded the Stockbridge technology centre? This week, the centre took over the management of the world-famous horticultural research facility at Stockbridge house in my constituency, only months after the facility was earmarked for closure—much to the consternation of the industry—by Horticultural Research International.

Ms Quin: I certainly pay tribute to my hon. Friend for what he has done to secure both activity at the Stockbridge site and the work being done there by the organisation to which he referred. I know that he has had a number of meetings with MAFF Ministers to ensure a good use of the Stockbridge site and also to ensure that some of the work being done in his constituency complements other work being done to assist the horticulture industry generally throughout the country.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Given that many growers are heavily dependent on direct sales from their holdings, as I have been in the past, what assessment has the Ministry made of the indirect effects of the foot and mouth epidemic in inhibiting people from travelling to horticultural or mixed holdings to make direct purchases?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter. Obviously, we do not want to encourage any movements that might compromise the fight against foot and mouth disease, but at the same time we do not want to restrict unnecessarily bona fide movements that would help the horticulture industry. The best way to resolve the matter is through continuing discussions with the Horticultural Trades Association and other representatives of the industry.

Food Manufacturing (Foot and Mouth)

Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with representatives of the food manufacturing sector on the effect of the foot and mouth outbreak on their industry. [155679]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): This week I have met representatives of the Food and Drink Federation, the Institute of Grocery Distribution, the British Retail Consortium, the Provision Trade Federation, the British Meat Manufacturers Association, Dairy Crest, Express Dairies, Nestle, Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Morrison's. This is in addition to the weekly meetings with food chain representatives and others which my right hon. Friends the Ministers of State chair.

Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that many more people are employed in the food manufacturing industry than in


farming? Will he assure the House that serious attention is being given to food manufacturers, especially those who rely on export markets?

Mr. Brown: As well as meeting senior representatives of the industry, I have, as I said, put in place weekly meetings for the trade to discuss issues arising out of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. It is true that many people are employed in downstream activities such as food processing and distribution, and retailing, and that their numbers are greater than the total number of people employed in agriculture. However, the food industry is an integrated whole, and I never lose the opportunity to emphasise to everyone that it is a great British industry and that we all have a vested interest in the well-being of the different parts of the chain.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the Minister agree that consistency of advice is important, especially in respect of dairy products? Yesterday, at the seminar that the right hon. Gentleman kindly organised, a question was asked about whether cattle should be put out to pasture. The advice given was that there was no problem, provided that they were kept at least 100 m away from sheep. However, on the 8 o'clock BBC News this morning, it was announced that the right hon. Gentleman would be telling the House that the Government would be discouraging farmers from putting cattle out to pasture. What has happened in the past 18 hours to change the advice that was given yesterday?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should not look for an inconsistency where none exists. It is perfectly true that if cattle are put out to graze on their own, without any other animals being present, their vulnerability is greatly reduced. However, the presence of sheep that might carry the infectivity poses an enormous danger to dairy animals. That is why, working very closely with the National Farmers Union, we are trying to keep the dairy animals housed for as long as we can so that the culling policy, especially relating to fat sheep in Cumbria, has a chance to take the fullest possible effect.

Foot and Mouth

Ms Julia Drown: When he forecasts that the incidence of foot and mouth outbreaks will start to decline. [155680]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On the basis of independent scientific advice, the Government's chief scientific adviser has concluded that the Government's slaughter and containment policy is beginning to bear down on the disease. Nevertheless, this is a very serious outbreak, which is likely to have a long tail. The critical interventions in controlling the disease are to cull all animals susceptible to foot and mouth disease on infected holdings within 24 hours, and to cull all susceptible animals on farms sharing a boundary with the infected premises within 48 hours. We will be better placed to predict the future development of the disease in a week's time.

Ms Drown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's optimism and recognise the huge difficulties in predicting

the decline of such an infectious disease. That good news is also good news for the tourism industry. One issue that farmers in my constituency are raising with me relates to the welcome opening of more footpaths. They are concerned that footpaths that are close to livestock may be reopened. Can my right hon. Friend assure them that proper guidance will be sent to councils and to farmers via the very good network of NFU contacts so that people can be assured that all precautions will be taken?
May I also pass on another concern from local farmers? Transporter vehicles have to travel long distances to disinfection points. Can my right hon. Friend assure farmers that that policy will be examined to see whether the distances can be reduced?

Mr. Brown: We are examining whether we can open further disinfection points. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the key advice that people should stay away from farmed livestock, but that is all the advice. There is no reason why people cannot enjoy footpaths. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will issue comprehensive advice on precisely that point.

Mr. Tom King: As the key factor in ensuring that this terrible crisis abates is to effect the rapid slaughter and disposal of animals, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report produced in 1968 by Western Command on the military impact and the efforts of the troops? It shows how they structured the recommendation to have a civilian commander with responsibility for veterinary matters and relations with Ministries and a military commander with total responsibility for dealing with the administration logistics of the slaughter and disposal of animals. Has that structure been recommended to the Minister? It was recommended after 1968. Can it be introduced now in view of the critical need to take a more urgent approach to the disposal of animals?

Mr. Brown: The structure that the right hon. Gentleman describes sounds to me very much like what is actually happening in Cumbria, Devon and other hotspots. If there is some difference in nuance that he wishes to raise or pursue, I am happy to discuss it with him, but there is no division between the approach taken by military and civilian personnel. They are all working very well together to a common shared objective.

Mr. Derek Foster: Despite what my right hon. Friend has said, the perception in Bishop Auckland, where there are 17 confirmed cases, is that the situation is still getting worse. Will he please guarantee that he can get sufficient resources to the command in the north-east of England to ensure that the cull of animals on adjoining farms can be accomplished within 48 hours?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I visited the north-east headquarters of the disease control operation last Sunday. In response to representations from my right hon. Friend and others, I have ensured that extra resources—especially extra veterinary resources—are allocated to the north-east of England to give his constituents the reassurance to which they are entitled.

Mr. Colin Breed: Will the Minister confirm what he believes are the grounds for the


guarded optimism that we heard yesterday? Does he share entirely the views of the chief scientific adviser? If so, and if we are seeing the beginning of the end, will he give his attention to movement licences in unaffected areas? Many farmers are substantially affected, even though they are not in affected areas.

Mr. Brown: I keep the issue of movement licences carefully under review, but I am not yet in a position to announce any liberalisation of the regime. I hope that what the chief scientist says is right, but I am not able to confirm it yet. As I said, we need a further seven days to get a better take on the pattern of this serious disease outbreak. In the meantime, we should not relax our guard; there is no room for complacency.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, I listen carefully to the news that is given to the House. However, I wonder whether the use of landfill sites for carcases may spread the disease in areas where we had not previously seen it, because animals graze right up to such sites and there is great danger. Would we not be better off rendering the animals?

Mr. Brown: Farmed livestock are, of course, kept away from landfill sites. The risk of spreading the disease through the movement of vehicles to landfill sites is minimal and, of course, the risk of the disease re-emerging from such sites is even lower than very, very minimal.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the defining moment for whether the incidence is in decline or on the increase will be on or about 23 April? He referred to cattle coming out of winter shelter and going to spring pastures. However, it is not good enough for the Ministry to say that the animals should be kept indoors, when farmers have no money to feed the beasts. In many instances, there are also animal welfare considerations. Yesterday, the Minister's scientific experts told us that there must be a distance of 100 m or one field separating cattle and sheep. If MAFF fails to control the disease on that date—23 April—does the Minister accept that its incidence could rise to 400 cases per day?

Mr. Brown: No, I do not accept the forecast to which the hon. Lady treats the House. The policies we are pursuing are right. It is right for the Government to work with the NFU leadership to keep valuable dairy stock housed for as long as possible so that the risk of their exposure to the disease is minimised. She is right to say that the animals will have to be turned out, but is wrong to say that the date on which they are turned out will be the day when the policy is tested. If we do not pursue vigorously the policy on which we are embarked, we all have a duty to consider the alternatives. None of them—including the use of vaccination for dairy animals—is easy, and they are being resisted by the industry, especially by the farmers who own the animals.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend refer to Brigadier Birtwhistle the thanks and appreciation of all Members of the House for his sterling work? For many of us, the brigadier has restored the belief that people in public service do a first-class job.
Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether it is scientifically possible to vaccinate cattle without a delayed cull?

Mr. Brown: The answer to the second question is obviously yes. Indeed, among the strategies that the Government are considering but have not adopted, and that are not being announced today, is the possibility that valuable dairy animals could be vaccinated and live on—the vaccine would wear off over the next 12 months. That strategy is possible, but there is a downside too, including issues of trade and consumer acceptance.
On the work of Brigadier Birtwhistle and his men, I have seen at first hand the excellent work that the armed services are doing in Carlisle, working alongside civilian personnel to a common objective. My congratulations go out to everyone—both civilian and military personnel, who are working so hard throughout the country to get this terrible disease under control and to eliminate it.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly welcome the latest, more encouraging projections about the future scale of the outbreak and very much hope that those will be confirmed by events in the next few weeks. Will the Minister confirm that, as his Ministry's figures show that 277,000 animals were awaiting slaughter on Tuesday of last week and that only 229,000 were slaughtered in the following seven days, at least 48,000 infected or dangerous contact animals remained unslaughtered for at least a week? As that shows that the Government are still a long way from meeting the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target described two weeks ago by the chief scientific adviser as essential if foot and mouth disease is to be brought under control, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to continue to publish daily figures for the number of animals awaiting slaughter, the number being slaughtered and the number of carcases awaiting disposal?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's approach is mistaken. The crucial intervention is between report and slaughter. We must get those figures down to under 24 hours. That is the advice from the epidemiologists and it was what we have set out to do. The hon. Gentleman is looking at animals that have been ordered for slaughter in infected premises and on neighbouring premises. The slaughter of animals on neighbouring premises is necessary, but it is an intervention of less significance—although important—than culling animals on infected premises. In fact, vets as a matter of routine are first slaughtering animals on infected premises that show signs of infection, before slaughtering the cohorts. To enable the House to understand the full range, for every three cases that are reported—that is what triggers the veterinary inspection—two turn out to be false alarms and only one is a real outbreak.

Mr. Yeo: Given what the Minister has said, will he therefore undertake to publish a separate figure within the total of animals awaiting slaughter for those that are infected and need to be slaughtered within the 24-hour target and those that are simply on neighbouring farms, for which I understand the target is 48 hours? The figures that I quoted show that even that lesser target is a long way from being met. Will he also confirm that as of today, about 1.5 million animals are awaiting slaughter under the welfare disposal scheme and that many of them are


experiencing distressing animal welfare problems? What steps is he taking to clear that massive backlog and will he also publish regular figures so that progress can be publicly measured?

Mr. Brown: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's first question. The second was a perfectly proper question about the animal welfare scheme, which has proved to be very popular. If the industry were working completely normally, it would take five weeks of normal consumption to clear the animals that are being proposed for the scheme. This is a new scheme and it has been set up from a standing start. We have started to take animals away on a priority basis. The purpose of the scheme is to deal with genuine welfare issues. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a backlog and we are trying to clear it, but I cannot promise the House that that will be easy given the popularity of the scheme.

Mr. Phil Sawford: In Northamptonshire, as a result of one confirmed case, movements are restricted in a huge swath of my constituency, which leads to animal welfare and financial problems, and other farmers are falling foul of the BSE rules under the over-30-months scheme. Will my right hon. Friend look at the area covered by those restrictions and the time scale for them? Will he also look at the discrepancy between the 75 per cent. paid under the 30-months rule and the 100 per cent. paid under the foot and mouth rules, because some farmers are losing out through no fault of their own?

Mr. Brown: A number of anomalies are created by the movement restrictions, and they are unavoidable if we are to bear down on the disease. I will do what I can to help, and I promise my hon. Friend that I will look at the issues that he raises. However, I cannot move away from the very firmly imposed movement restrictions if we are to have any chance of eliminating the disease and returning quickly to normal trade.

Agricultural Imports

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on agricultural imports from other EU countries. [155681]

Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on agricultural imports into the United Kingdom. [155684]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The total value of imports of food, feed and drink last year was £17 billion, £10.9 billion of which was imported from the European Union. Meat imported from other EU member states must be produced in conformance with EU laws on meat hygiene and on controlling the risks of BSE. Imports of meat from non-EU countries are allowed only if the country and the meat plant involved have been approved by the EU Commission as producing to standards at least equivalent to those applicable in the EU.
My right hon. Friend is in contact with Commissioner Byrne and has requested that an examination of the legislation and enforcement measures relating to the controls on imports of animal products into the EU takes

place at the earliest opportunity. I shall reinforce that message with colleagues in the EU Agriculture Council this weekend.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that answer. Given the flow of imports that do not satisfy the meat hygiene or animal welfare standards that we rightly demand of our own produce, will the Minister now impose a precautionary ban on German and Dutch beef, protect the public from the illegal inclusion of animal products in consignments of non-animal products, and introduce honesty-in-labelling legislation so that consumers can know the country of origin and method of production of food and make a free and informed choice of what to buy?

Ms Quin: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, he will know that, under this Government, new beef labelling rules have been agreed that are much stricter than was the case before. He will also know that the Food Standards Agency is examining 100 per cent. of the meat imported from Germany and the Netherlands to ensure that there is no risk of specified risk material coming into this country. As a result of the FSA's investigations, there has already been a suspension of activities in abattoirs in Germany.

Mr. Syms: Will the Minister set out in detail what action Ministers took when Mr. Clive Lawrance alerted them in May last year that hundreds of tonnes of illegally imported meat was coming through Heathrow airport?

Ms Quin: Mr. Lawrance rightly drew attention to a number of instances where illegal products had been discovered. His comments and observations were passed on Customs and Excise. Furthermore, Mr. Lawrance wrote to me in March this year. I acknowledged his letter straight away because he mentioned foot and mouth disease, and I have since responded to him in full and have also asked him to contribute to the work that we are doing on the review of import controls.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned honesty in labelling. This Government have made greater progress on labelling than anything that was done under the previous Government. That is certainly true of meat labelling. On previous occasions, I have recommended the work of the Ministry's verification officer in changing misleading labels in supermarkets.

Charlotte Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the devastation that has been caused, there is a very good case for a total ban on the personal imports of meat and meat products into the European Union? Recently, a group of students from my constituency went to France, and they were not even allowed to take a packet of crisps into that country. Does she further agree that we need to take urgent action? I urge her to press this issue with her European colleagues next week.

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right; this issue needs to be considered urgently and it needs to be considered at the European level. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Minister made clear, we are also leading a


cross-departmental review on the ways in which we can ensure that our national controls, as well as the European Union controls, are as effective as possible.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many countries outside the European Union—for example, Botswana—produce meat to the highest possible standards? Does she also accept that many developing countries want trade not aid? Will she take this opportunity to move away from the protectionism of the common agricultural policy and encourage the purchase of more meat from third-world countries which seek the opportunity to sell to the EU?

Ms Quin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. Some countries have high standards and, in this debate, we must avoid jingoism and false patriotism. On the other hand, we must be vigilant to ensure that sub-standard meat does not enter the country.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Minister's officials confirmed last year that the outbreak of classical swine fever was caused by illegally imported meat. It would now seem that lightning has struck twice, with the preliminary finding that imported meat was the probable source of the current foot and mouth disease outbreak. How many times does disaster have to strike the agricultural industry before the Government do something about illegal meat imports?

Ms Quin: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who knows better, should present such an over-simplified version of events. He knows well that we suspect that imported meat was the cause of the outbreak of classical swine fever, but we do not have absolute proof. Quite rightly, investigations are taking place into the current outbreak. Although it is certain that some kind of imported product must have been the origin of it, another attached problem is that that product may have been inadequately treated in pigswill. That is why the Government are proposing in their consultation to end the use of pigswill.
The Government have responded to recommendations about improving and eliminating the undesirable feeding of certain mammalian products to animals in a way that the hon. Gentleman's Government did not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made that point very clear in last week's debate.

Livestock Movements

Mr. Mark Todd: What representations he has received on the process for awarding livestock movement licences. [155682]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I have received a great many representations about livestock movement licences, and there are essentially four schemes.
The movement of animals direct to slaughter has been permitted since 3 March. Local and occupational movement licences allowing short-distance movements were introduced on 9 March, and longer-distance movement licences were introduced from 17 March. For circumstances in which these schemes will not alleviate

animal welfare problems, we introduced the welfare disposal scheme on 22 March. This provides free collection, transport, slaughter and disposal of animals as well as a payment to the farmer for the animals taken.
We are continuing to develop the controls and administrative arrangements for these schemes in the light of experience. However, I must emphasise that disease control has to be the top priority.

Mr. Todd: I share my right hon. Friend's commitment to tight movement controls, but do not experience of the risks and the epidemiology advice available lead us to think that we may be able to refine those movement controls? For example, could we not reconsider the 21-day standstill period, which is obligatory for local movements, and consider speeding up the process of awarding occupational licences, which can take three to four days? The sloth of that process is directly linked to the vast call on the welfare scheme that has been introduced. If we can obtain quicker and more precise movements, we may avoid some of the welfare problems that we currently face.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: where limited trade can take place under licence, it should be the preferred route for the industry—for the farmer and the meat trade in general. As the pattern of the disease is regionalised and reducing, I envisage that it will be possible to relax the control measures in parts of the country that are disease free. Our priority must be to keep those areas disease free as we bear down on outbreaks. I know that it is hard, but strict controls and a strict licensing regime are necessary to eliminate the disease.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given the backlog in issuing licences and the problems that farmers face in moving stock, especially from one clean area to another, may I suggest that it was hugely crass and insensitive of the Ministry to send out the integrated administration and control system forms now to be returned fully completed by 15 May? I urge the Minister to reconsider that cut-off date and, if necessary, to make representations to those in Brussels who are in charge of the scheme so that the farming community is not further penalised or subject to additional anxieties.

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is necessary for people to complete a claim. We are able to invoke the force majeure rules in those circumstances when people, for perfectly understandable reasons, are not able to fulfil the scheme's conditions, but they must claim and explain why the force majeure rules should apply to their case. That is a reasonable way to proceed. Officials have behaved sensibly and the Commission has gone out of its way to help to us in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the granting of movement licences in unaffected areas? I understand the difficulties, but a farmer who owns two farms that are not close enough to enable him to benefit from short-distance licences might have to move cattle on animal welfare grounds.

Mr. Brown: Yes, I am happy in general to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. However, it is not a matter for me in Wales because it is a devolved responsibility.

Mr. James Paice: Given the overstretch of the Ministry's vets, would it not be sensible to allow local private vets to authorise movements within uninfected areas, so that welfare problems are resolved? On the number of animals awaiting movement and slaughter, if we accept the Minister's comments about contiguous animals being slightly less important than the infected herd for slaughter and if the 24-hour and 48-hour targets are being met, should we not expect the number of animals awaiting slaughter to fall? Is that number falling, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, or is it still rising, as figures on the Ministry's website demonstrate?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes the same mistake as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) by confusing two different issues. The crucial intervention is the 24 hours between report and slaughter. Animals that show signs of infectivity are most likely to spread the disease, which is why they are culled out before cohorts on infected premises. If it is possible to cull out the neighbouring premises with the same teams—which it is, in some circumstances—that is done. If it is not, there is a delay as further slaughter teams are sent for. We should not understate the size of the problem. Some holdings have 10,000 animals on them. Although a holding might appear as one farm, the work can be substantial. Given the scale of the work, there is a necessary gap between the start and the finish of slaughtering.

Foot and Mouth (Vaccinations)

Mr. Paul Flynn: If he will review his policy on vaccinations of livestock against foot and mouth disease. [155683]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Vaccination has always been an option that we have kept under constant review. The European Union Standing Veterinary Committee agreed that emergency vaccination of cattle in Cumbria and Devon could be carried out if the Government concluded that it was necessary as an additional disease-control measure.

Mr. Flynn: The disappointing thing about yesterday's seminar was its failure to provide us with a rational cost-benefit analysis of the present policies compared with the alternatives of partial or full vaccination. We know that the costs are immense—possibly £9 billion—to protect an industry that will be worth nothing for the next three years, but was worth about a third of a billion pounds at best. The cost in human and animal suffering is enormous. When the outbreak is over, in a year or two, foot and mouth is likely to return spontaneously, by accident or, most likely, by the deliberate act of a person or organisation. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will then take fully into account what

happened in Albania, Macedonia, Algeria and Taiwan, where vaccination was used extensively? We should look to MAFF to represent all rural industries, and not just—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for the Minister.

Mr. Morley: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have considered the experience of countries that have used vaccination extensively, and there were problems in every case. Vaccination is an option, and we have contingency plans, as is right and proper. Sometimes it is right also to challenge conventional thinking about the way to deal with issues, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not afraid to do so.
Vaccines are not a panacea and there are problems with them. There is resistance to the idea within farming, and there is no consensus of approach on their use, which would be important if they were to be used. There are also problems with trade, identification and potential consumer resistance. Nevertheless, we need to consider these matters carefully and keep them under review.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that ring vaccination around the worst-affected areas would have a dramatic advantage over the present policy at this time? Has he seen the excellent work done by the Elm Farm research centre, the admirable letter in The Times this morning from Fiona Reynolds, the director-general of the National Trust, or the work of Toby and Emma Tennant in the borders, all of whom urge that that step be taken? Of course it is a bold step, but this is a moment for bold action.

Mr. Morley: Yes, I have seen the views of Fiona Reynolds and others, and I take them very seriously. The use of ring vaccination has been considered, including as a method of damping down the disease. At present, the view is that it would not give us the same benefits as the present policy of 24–48 hours. As the House has heard, there are indications that the policy is beginning to bite into the outbreak, anti we must take that into account. We are keeping our options open and we are trying to evaluate the best way of using vaccines and non-vaccine approaches.

Mr. David Lammy: Has there been any consideration of the use of vaccination in urban farms and zoos? My hon. Friend will appreciate that they are in special circumstances, and they are experiencing great difficulties at this time.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are special circumstances in zoos with exotic animals and rare breeds. The EU Standing Veterinary Committee discussed the matter yesterday. Its report was submitted to the Ministry today and we will consider its recommendations to see whether there is a role for vaccination in those circumstances.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that the constant public musings about whether or not to vaccinate, which were started by the Prime Minister and have continued this morning, merely add confusion, and that the job of Government is to make up their mind? While they are not doing so, it is inevitable that people will increasingly ask that vaccination be used.


If it is not to be used, the Minister simply has to make a proper calculation of the costs of the present policy of eradication by slaughter and stack that against the value of the trade that we are trying to save and the costs of the public's refusal to buy products that might flow from vaccination. Unless all those facts are in the public domain instead of general musings, the Minister will not settle the controversy and he will not win the argument.

Mr. Morley: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic suggestion that we should rule something out and that we should not have a debate on whether there is a role for vaccination. I stress that vaccination is not a panacea: there are severe downsides to its use. It is not the majority view in the veterinary or scientific world, although there is, of course, a minority view to the contrary. It is right and proper that we hold the option open, but it is most important that we control and eradicate the disease. The current policy appears to be bearing down on it, so it has to be the priority; vaccination is currently of secondary importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Serious Cases (Crown Court)

Shona McIsaac: What impact the Narey reforms have had on the speeding up of the outcome of serious cases before the Crown court. [155708]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The new Narey indictable-only procedures that came into force on 15 January this year abolished committal proceedings for the most serious cases. Instead, following a single, brief magistrates court appearance, defendants charged with offences such as murder, rape and serious firearms or drug offences appear before a Crown court judge slightly more than a week after charge. Early indications suggest that there has been a tremendous change of culture, with some defendants in such cases wishing to indicate a guilty plea at the first Crown court hearing. In that way, even in cases such as armed robbery, sentences are being passed only nine days after charge.

Shona McIsaac: How will the Narey reforms specifically benefit the victims of serious crime or the families who are left behind? All too often, victims perceive that it takes far too long for cases to come to court; they feel neglected and that they do not know what is happening. The justice system is designed to deal with crooks and criminals, and victims often feel that crooks and criminals have more rights than they do.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Obviously, the early completion of serious cases removes the upset caused to victims, witnesses and relatives and so reduces the stress and anxiety that they might otherwise feel. There is also an advantage for defendants: if they plead early, there are quite considerable sentencing discounts. The Labour Government inherited a system under which it took about 12 weeks to get such cases

committed to the Crown court, and another four weeks—often more—for an indication of plea to be given, whereas these cases are now being resolved extremely quickly.

Mr. John Greenway: I welcome the Minister's answer. I recall the changes that took place in 1967, when I was a serving police officer; they, too, speeded up the system. The line that he is taking is the right one. Further to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), does he agree that that accelerated process now provides a golden opportunity to ensure that every victim has a Crown Prosecution Service official as a specific contact point in the handling of their case?

The Solicitor-General: That is very much our policy. As I have said on previous occasions, we are introducing a system whereby the CPS will be the first point of contact with victims. We have just received an evaluation report on the pilots and we are considering it, but later this year we will roll out exactly the sort of system that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — Crown Prosecution Service (Human Rights Act)

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the Crown Prosecution Service. [155709]

The Solicitor-General: The representations that I have received suggest that Crown prosecutors and the courts have matched up very well to the demand that has so far been placed on them by the Human Rights Act. There has not been the chaos in the criminal justice system that some predicted. Crown prosecutors were well trained and prepared for the coming into force of the Act, and they are applying the principles of the convention with increasing confidence both during the prosecution review process and when meeting challenges based on convention rights in court—

Mr. Eric Forth: How depressing.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman might think that, but I think it extremely important that prosecutors were trained and ready to deal with the introduction of the Act.
As a lawyer, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will have been able to note in the law reports the mostly unsuccessful outcomes of defendants' arguments based on convention nights.

Miss McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that very full reply. Can he provide an estimate of the cost of rearranging courts so that prisoners and accused people are no longer seen in handcuffs? Is he in a position today to make a commitment to repay to the CPS the full cost of the introduction of the Human Rights Act?

The Solicitor-General: A certain amount of money was set aside to deal with the implementation of the Human Rights Act, but most of it has not been required. Cases have not been delayed. Magistrates certainly have


to give reasons now, but that is a good thing. In some cases, defence lawyers are making arguments in the Crown court, but most of those are quickly dismissed. On the hon. Lady's specific point, there has to be a programme of modernising courts around the country, and that is now occurring

Mr. David Kidney: Should not we all be satisfied that Crown Prosecution Service lawyers have continued to present their cases to court responsibly? Has that not largely contributed to the absence of horror stories in the media, which no doubt some editors had hoped to publish?

The Solicitor-General: That is certainly the case. In a range of cases, whether involving reverse onus provisions, privilege against self-incrimination or evidence from entrapment situations, defence challenges have not been upheld by the Court of Appeal. Although some Opposition Members have the mentality that the sky will fall in, that has not been the case.

Mr. John Burnett: Does the Solicitor-General agree that the pernicious consequences of plea bargaining include innocent people pleading guilty to offences that they did not commit and the guilty getting off far too lightly? Does he agree that plea bargaining is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Human Rights Act? What instructions on plea bargaining does he give the Crown Prosecution Service?

The Solicitor-General: I do not accept the premise that a breach of the Human Rights Act is involved. Clear rules are set out in various Court of Appeal decisions and guidance that the Attorney-General issued late last year on plea bargaining. Plea bargaining behind doors cannot occur, but in some cases defendants who want to plead guilty will give an indication to that effect. Provided that the matter is dealt with transparently and openly, those pleas will be accepted.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Can the Solicitor-General list for the House three practical benefits for the CPS that have flowed directly from the implementation of the Human Rights Act?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Justice is one.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. As a result of the Human Rights Act, the CPS is much more conscious of the rights of defendants. As I said, in most cases the challenges have not proved to be successful. I do have concerns; some courts are looking at cases of delay, regarding them as a breach of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which, frankly, I do not accept. As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, we are trying to change the culture so that all public institutions will be much more conscious of the rights of ordinary people. I should have thought that Opposition Members would support that aim.

Oral Answers to Questions — CPS (Computer Systems)

Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on his plans to equip the Crown Prosecution Service with new computer systems. [155710]

The Solicitor-General: I am pleased to report that the programme to equip the CPS with modern computer systems began national roll-out to the 42 areas in November of last year, with completion planned for November 2001. The "connect 42" project provides basic information technology tools and enables staff to be connected to each other and the police. The project was successful in gaining accreditation to the Government secure intranet, which will enable the CPS to join up electronically with its criminal justice system partners and the wider government community.
Implementation in the first 13 areas has taken place and more than 1,500 staff have been trained in new IT techniques. CPS London will start to receive "connect 42" this month and, as I said, the roll-out will be complete by the end of the year.

Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. I am pleased that the CPS will soon be online in my area of south-east London. Can he give an assurance that the system will be compatible with systems for the police and the magistracy, given the importance of the three elements operating together? Can he say how such compatibility will be assured?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that he has taken a great interest in the matter and has visited the CPS on various occasions. He wrote a detailed report for me as a result of those visits. The project was designed not to go wrong. We have started giving Crown prosecutors basic IT skills and they have access to databases, file information and so on. After this year, the next step will be to make sure that there is a link-up with other criminal justice system agencies, such as the police and the courts. That is already possible in some areas, but not in all. We are working with the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that we have an interconnected criminal justice system.

Mr. John Bercow: For that purpose, when were the market-testing criteria last reviewed, and what is the intended length of the contract terms?

The Solicitor-General: As I said, the current contract for "connect 42" will be completed by the end of this year. Tenders are being considered for the next stage of the project. So far, we have received indications from some half a dozen of the leading commercial suppliers of IT equipment. There is great interest in the project. It will succeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — Metropolitan Police (Prosecutions)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: How many prosecutions against Metropolitan police officers have


been abandoned in the past four years (a) prior to opening in court and (b) during court proceedings; and how many prospective prosecutions are outstanding. [155711]

The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records on proceedings against police officers, or other particular categories of defendants. The information is held on individual case files, and could be retrieved only at disproportionate cost. In general terms, the CPS did not proceed in approximately 12 per cent. of cases last year. Where cases proceeded to a hearing, convictions were recorded in 98.3 per cent. of hearings in magistrates courts and 88.3 per cent. in the Crown court, involving about 1 million defendants.

Mr. Mackinlay: Following the jailing last Tuesday of police informer Geoffrey Brennan, who had accused my constituent, Detective Inspector John Redgrave—suspended since February 1997—of corruption, and given that those accusations were subsequently withdrawn and no evidence was produced against my constituent by Chief Superintendent John Coles of the Complaints Investigation Bureau, is it not time that my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary revisited the matter, which I raised in Westminster Hall on 31 October, in connection with the abysmal treatment of my constituent? The court case against Brennan reinforced what I said then about the scam by MI5 and the anti-terrorist squad's involvement in illicit or illegal gun running with Roger Crooks, who also supplied the helicopter to Sandline and is holed up in Mama Yoko hotel, Freetown? Will my hon. and learned Friend revisit the case, as there is a significant smell about

the whole thing, yet my constituent, uncharged and uncomplained about in any practical sense, is still languishing on suspension at enormous public cost?

The Solicitor-General: I know that my hon. Friend raised the matter on another occasion. His constituent made complaints about the conduct of the police in the investigation, and I know that the police have conducted further investigations and that the papers are now with the CPS. They are being dealt with in a different CPS area, to remove any suggestion of a conflict of interest. As the investigation is continuing, I cannot say anything further about the specifics. I will keep my hon. Friend informed about the details.

Rev. Martin Smyth: One recognises that Caesar's wife must be above reproach, but is it not fair to police officers that they be treated in the same way as others? An investigation going on for such a long time does nothing for morale in any police service, and the media constantly denigrate police officers, who do an outstanding job under tremendous pressures.

The Solicitor-General: I certainly agree that the police do an outstanding job. However, when allegations are made about serious wrongdoing by the police, such as attempts to pervert the course of justice, they must be investigated. That is done under the auspices of the Police Complaints Authority.
Of course, the Crown Prosecution Service has a role in considering these matters. As I intimated to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the mechanics are such that matters are taken outside an area or dealt with by more senior prosecutors, so that there can be no allegations that they have been got at in any way.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 10 APRIL—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill.
Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment debate.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The provisional business for the week after the Easter recess is as follows:
MONDAY 23 APRIL—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 24 APRIL—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.
WEDNESDAY 25 APRIL—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 26 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 27 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 30 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords].
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 25 April, there will be a debate relating to community immigration policy in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 25 April, there will be a debate relating to the European Aviation Safety Agency in European Standing Committee A.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 2 May, there will be a debate relating to a common asylum procedure and uniform status for persons granted asylum in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Relevant documents:
Wednesday 25 April 2001:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 14329/00, European Aviation Safety Agency. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 28-xi and HC 28-v (2000–01).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document:11529/00, Community immigration policy. Relevant European Scrutiny Reports: HC 28-iii (2000–01).]
Relevant documents:
Wednesday 2 May 2001:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 13119/00, Towards a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons granted asylum. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-viii (2000–01).]
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks after the Easter recess will he as follows:
THURSDAY 26 APRIL—Debate on tackling the illegal trade in African "conflict diamonds".
THURSDAY 3 MAY—Debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee on border controls.
I anticipate announcing further debates after the Easter recess.

Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for that information.
Will the right hon. Lady ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to come to the House to make a statement about the school achievement awards? Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been notified this week by the Minister for School Standards that something has gone seriously wrong in the Government's school achievement awards. The Department states:
The error arose from a miscalculation of Key Stage 2 test average point scores".
As a result, schools that have already been notified that they have won a school achievement award have not actually won it, and must now be written to, to be told that a mistake has been made. Schools that were omitted from the original list are now also to be written to.
We understand that, in order to ensure that there are no tears, the schools will be given the money anyway, whether or not they achieved an award. It is a bit like the Caucus race in "Alice in Wonderland", as everyone gets a prize, except that the schools that genuinely did not achieve an award at all will receive no money, while others that did not achieve an award, but in different circumstances, will get the money. The Secretary of State should make a statement to the House, as it seems that one or two Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment should do a little bit of detention for getting it all so wrong.
I want also to make a helpful suggestion to the right hon. Lady, who will know that, in last week's business questions, she said in response to a question about the deferment of county council elections:
Certainly, it has been the Government's view for some time that to suspend the county council elections would give a strong and negative signal."—[Official Report, 29 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 1109.]
That remark was made just four days before the Prime Minister changed his mind. Of course, we all saw her holding to that line on television at the weekend and, indeed, on Monday morning. It occurred to me that, when most business meetings reconvene, the agenda usually contains an item called "matters arising". It also occurred to me that I might support such a suggestion from the Modernisation Committee. If, at the end of the business statement, we were able to deal with clear, although not deliberate, inaccuracies arising from the previous week's


questions, it might help us to conduct our business in a more business-like manner. I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider that positive suggestion.
Now that we know that Parliament will not be dissolved for a while, the Government should find Government time for a debate on foot and mouth. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has answered questions today, but it was disappointing that he did not make a statement this week. I hope that the right hon. Lady will ensure that, as soon we return from the Easter recess, the Government allow a day's debate on foot and mouth. The Opposition have done that on two occasions.
Will the right hon. Lady explain the procedure on submitting written questions to the Table Office in the possible run-up to a general election? I gave the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) notice that I would use him as an example, but I do not believe that he is the only one. Already, £4,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent on no fewer than 31 questions about other people's constituencies. There are rules about that matter, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will be sufficiently anxious to find time for the House to consider the way in which some hon. Members are suddenly, for some unexpected reason, interesting themselves in other people's business.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady asked first about the school achievement awards. I am sure that she is disappointed that the money is staying with the schools, thus depriving the Opposition of a chance to criticise. She asked about the error and whether Ministers would apologise. I have not asked, but I doubt whether Ministers personally made those calculations. However, it appears that a little more progress on the numeracy hour is needed somewhere in the Department for Education and Employment.
I finally worked out the hon. Lady's question about deferring the local elections. I know that respected national newspapers have a corrections column, but I do not plan a similar feature for this Session. As she knows, I have repeatedly reminded Opposition Members, often to their displeasure, of the strong representations that we have received from the tourism industry, and stressed that they had to be taken into account along with representations from the agriculture sector. In that sense, we said nothing different from what was said previously.
The hon. Lady requested a debate on foot and mouth and expressed regret that there was no statement this week. We have had Agriculture questions today, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture arranged a presentation to keep hon. Members informed. They are therefore up to date.
The hon. Lady asked about the submission of written questions. I am delighted that she asked me that because it gives me an opportunity to use some information that I have been carrying around for weeks. I am sure that she is keen for her constituents to know that, in her constituency, more than 21,000 pensioners received the winter fuel allowance, more than 8,000 pensioners got the free television licence and more than 2,500 families receive the working families tax credit. I am sure that she is eager for them to know the extent to which they benefit from a Labour Government. I sympathise with Opposition Members about the problems that that causes for them.

Day after day, they claim that nothing has changed for the better and that policies are a complete failure, whereas unfortunate figures reveal the opposite.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for statements to be made to the House from every appropriate Department as soon as possible—preferably before the election—setting out in detail what the Labour Government have done for every official Opposition Member and for every Member representing other minority parties on the Opposition Benches? I feel from the comments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that they do not want us to know.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is unfortunate for Opposition Members that the facts contradict so many of their arguments. It is especially unfortunate because, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the policies being proposed by the Opposition mean that if they were elected to government, many of the gains would speedily be removed from their constituents. Their position is understandable. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's request. I am not sure whether I can readily arrange for all the information to be made available, but I suppose that it is possible that it may get into the public domain somehow or other.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that, at the end of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food questions a few minutes ago, many Members on both sides of the House had not had their questions answered? May I ask the right hon. Lady to consider carefully what can be done next week to bring more information before the House? On a previous occasion, the Minister of Agriculture took questions after the normal time, which was extremely useful to the House. It was a great deal more useful than debates, because we were able to extract much information from him.
May I suggest to the Leader of the House that, as we have been reminded on a number of occasions now that it is the Prime Minister who has taken charge of the programme of eradicating foot and mouth, the right hon. Gentleman should make a statement and answer questions next week before the Easter recess? As the Minister of Agriculture said a few minutes ago, the next seven days are critical. It is clearly unsatisfactory for us to adjourn for the Easter recess, for quite a substantial time, at the moment when the Minister says that the situation is critical.
We have heard nothing for several days from a number of interdepartmental groups, including the rural taskforce, which apparently is not to meet again, and the Cabinet Committee on rural affairs. Confused messages are being given to the country from different Departments and an evident lack of resources is being made available to deal with the problem. For example, we are apparently recruiting vets from overseas while retired vets over 65 years of age are being turned away, even though they have volunteered their services. Is the Prime Minister prepared to face the questions that we wish to put to him on behalf of our constituents?

Mrs. Beckett: It is my understanding that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture gave a presentation


yesterday and it is now 12.42 pm, so the argument that a further statement and update is needed today is not especially well founded, particularly as we have had Agriculture questions. I understand that many Members wished to ask questions and not everyone was able to get in. I sympathise with those who were not. However, that is understandable in the circumstances that now obtain. I do not think that my right hon. Friend can be accused in any way of neglecting his duty to the House or failing to make available to the House as much information as he possibly can.
The notion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should make all the statements on foot and mouth is not well founded. My right hon. Friend is in charge of the entire Government, and remains so. [Interruption.] Indeed, Opposition Members try to blame him for everything; that is perfectly true. The Government are doing as much as anyone could reasonably expect to keep the House informed. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I announced last week when the House would adjourn for the recess, without any comment.

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend will be aware from the answer that she gave me earlier this week, which unfortunately I was unable to follow up because of traffic on the M4, that, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Lady put her question.

Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the Adjournment debate starts about 49 minutes later than it did during the first Session of this Parliament. Does that not reflect on the failure of the process of modernisation? Is it not time for us to stop bringing the House into disrepute by spending more time discussing the processes of how we consider legislation than we spend discussing the content of legislation? Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter in terms of when she timetables programming motions in the Session after the recess?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend was kind enough to send me a note of apology for her absence. That was entirely unnecessary: I knew that some problem must have arisen, because she is most assiduous in her attendance in the Chamber. I recall the figures that her question elicited, and it is certainly the case that a fairly sustained attempt has been made to detain the House later in the evenings than is necessary, by discussion not of the substance of Government business but of the processes. I accept that there is much room for criticism of those proceedings. However, my hon. Friend will find that a short but succinct and relevant new report by the Modernisation Committee has recently been published.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the right hon. Lady find time to allow the House to debate and come to decisions on parliamentary pay, pensions and allowances in the first week after the Easter recess? She will know that a tradition has grown up that

those matters are reviewed in substance in the lifetime of each Parliament. That has not happened in this Parliament, and many of us think that it should have.

Mrs. Beckett: May I say to the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon. Gentleman."] I beg his pardon. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not sure whether that practice has been around long enough to be called a tradition? I am aware that there is often a recognition that the conduct of business suggests that a review should be carried out during the Parliament. Such a review has recently been carried out, but it was quite recent and I cannot undertake to stage such a debate in the first week back. Obviously, it remains a matter for discussion.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is there a possibility of a debate on foreign affairs, now that we have a little more time? I ask this for two reasons. The first is the developing situation in the Balkans, where British forces are engaged and where there are clearly dangers that could lead to a wider conflict. The second is the developing crisis between the United States and China, which President Bush might use to justify the nuclear missile defence system, in which we would be involved through the use of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. It would be sensible if the House could have a statement by the Foreign Secretary and an opportunity to contribute our own views.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the important points that my right hon. Friend makes, but I cannot undertake to find time in the very near future for a foreign affairs debate. I recognise the genuine concerns that he raises, but a general foreign affairs debate that ranges across the world is more difficult to find time for on the Floor of the House. However, more specific debates on foreign affairs issues are more readily available in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The right hon. Lady might have noticed, in answers to questions put down by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and me, that the previous Conservative Government put £4.8 billion into mining regions, in a mixture of money including redundancy payments and economic regeneration. The right hon. Lady's own Government have poured just short of half a billion pounds into economic regeneration in coal-mining areas. Will she consider an urgent debate into the circumstances of the west country, which would give the House an opportunity to consider matters such as the plea to the Prime Minister by the people of a region pushed to the brink by foot and mouth, issued recently by a local newspaper? The debate would make the point that if a Conservative Government were capable of pouring in billions of pounds for economic regeneration, even though there were no votes in it, it is absolutely right that this Government should consider economic aid to those affected regions that is vastly greater than anything that they have previously contemplated.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the case that the hon. Gentleman makes on behalf of his constituents, and his concern for the difficulties that they face. He will know that the Government have made it plain that they take those considerations extremely seriously. Obviously, we shall have to look, over time, at the impact of the crisis


that is currently under way. That impact will be varied, and the Government are doing everything that they can to encourage people to recognise that the countryside is not closed, and to ensure that the impact on industries such as tourism is minimised. He and other right hon. and hon. Members will be very conscious that, no matter how generous the sort of loan schemes that people urge on the Government are, it cannot make up for the severe fall-off in business which it is most important to revive.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend referred a few moments ago to the most recent report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, which was published at the end of last week. It is a brief but important report. Will she try to ensure that the House has the opportunity to discuss that report before the end of this Parliament so that, in the next Parliament, we can take advantage of its recommendations to ensure that the House works in a better way and scrutinises legislation as the report proposes?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I pay tribute to him for the serious, thorough and non-partisan way in which he, like most members of the Modernisation Committee, have always conducted themselves in these discussions. He asks me to arrange a discussion on the report. I cannot necessarily undertake to do that at the present time, but I appreciate the steps that he has taken to draw it to the attention of the House because I think that it will inform our further discussions and debates.

Mr. Michael Jack: The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would knock heads together to get an improvement in the running of our railway system. Judging from the announcement of Virgin Trains that it is to raise fares on the west coast main line service by 10 per cent. following last month's cut in fares by 50 per cent., we seem to be getting into a surreal situation. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House so that we might probe him on what has gone wrong between Railtrack and Virgin Trains, as it is the innocent passengers using the west coast main line service who have to bear this outrageous increase in rail fares?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend to come specially to the House to deal with this issue, although I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. It is hard to see how that action will help to attract passengers back to the railway. However, he may have overlooked the fact that questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place on Tuesday 24 April.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the attention that the Government are giving the tourism industry in these difficult times. Nowhere is that more welcome than in the south-west. Will she consider having an early debate on tourism, so that we can draw attention to the can-do list of things which, in my constituency, where one in 10 people is employed in that industry, is far longer than the cannot-do list? Will she also urge right hon. and hon. Members to sign early-day motion 527?
[That this House calls on all honourable and Right honourable Members to visit Cornwall and Devon this Easter and to encourage their constituents to do the same, to demonstrate that the tourist industry is open for business.]
It is tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and myself, and urges people to visit the south-west during our rather generous Easter recess.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is entirely right about the need to encourage people to recognise how much of an opportunity to sample the delights of tourism in these islands is presently available. She is also right to ask for attention to be drawn to the opportunities that exist. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on tourism on the Floor of the House in the near future. However, she may well find that a debate in Westminster Hall is more easily obtained. Furthermore, she may recall that the BBC regional unit has made it plain that it makes extensive use of those debates. That could bring the matter to the attention of rather more people than a debate on the Floor of the House might do, as the chances of a parliamentary lobby covering such a debate are not terribly high.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement in the House, or at least to take part in a debate on answers to written questions? Last week, I asked the right hon. Gentleman two straightforward questions: what sum of money had been set aside by his Department to cover his legal expenses for bringing proceedings against Associated Newspapers and Tom Bower for the publication of extracts of his book; and when did he issue his High Court proceedings for libel? The Secretary of State responded in the Official Report, at column 106W, by referring me to the reply that he gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 2 April at column 7W. I looked at that column, and the answer had absolutely nothing to do with the questions that I had asked. I stress to the right hon. Lady that I have no professional interest in this case but, as a parliamentarian, I have an interest in the proper accountability of Ministers for the spending of public money.

Mrs. Beckett: I wondered whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was looking for trade, and I am relieved by his assurance that he was not—although I am sure that he would perform excellently in that capacity. He is right to say that all hon. Members take an interest in accountability and the use of public money. However, as no public money has yet been expended, I do not think that his point is very strong.

Mr. Alan Simpson: My right hon. Friend will know that about 20 million people will be hanging on tonight's news about who shot Phil Mitchell, but probably not many fewer people would be willing to do the same job on the Child Support Agency. I have never supported men who do not offer proper support to the children whom they produce, but it is important that the House have a debate on the extent to which we continue to fail miserably the women who get no support from their former partners. Moreover, good fathers are


pursued and persecuted because of cock-ups in the agency. Could the House have a statement or debate on the subject of why there is such an immovable backlog of cases to be examined by the independent case examiner, and about why the CSA appears to be unable to deal with the scale of damage inflicted by cock-ups in its internal operations?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that all hon. Members have constituents who have had difficulties in their dealings with the CSA. My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the great and indiscriminate distress and difficulty that is caused, often to both partners. I admit that I think that there has been some improvement in the agency's operation, and I am sure that its staff face a difficult task in dealing with such immensely complex issues.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, but my hon. Friend might look to take advantage of the increased opportunities offered by Westminster Hall.

Mr. David Heath: We heard in Agriculture questions that the next seven days will be crucial when it comes to knowing whether there are any grounds for the guarded optimism that has been expressed about foot and mouth disease. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) noted, it is extraordinary that the House should rise next Tuesday without hearing a statement from the Prime Minister about the current situation. Do the Government intend to table Government amendments to the Finance Bill to put into action some of the pledges that have been made to support our rural industries? Finally, will there be an opportunity to have another look at the rural White Paper? Some of its measures would have been extremely helpful to rural industries, especially in the south-west, had they been implemented in this Session.

Mrs. Beckett: There is no case for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to come to the House, although it is certainly true that the House must continue to be informed, and I am confident that that will happen.
The hon. Gentleman will know that I have announced the date of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and when progress will be made in Committee on the Floor of the House. It may be that the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to raise these matters then. I do not think that I should be required to suggest time for special debates when debating opportunities already exist.

Mr. David Winnick: The Opposition have already raised the matter of Virgin Trains raising fares by considerably more than inflation, and Railtrack is getting £1.5 billion in extra public money. In view of those facts, will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any possibility of an early debate on the total failure of the Tory privatisation of the rail industry? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that a possible remedy could be applied in the next Parliament—a remedy that is dear to the hearts of many Labour Members? She will know what I mean.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has long and assiduously argued his corner on this matter, as on other issues. He is right to identify the total failure of the policy

pursued by the previous Conservative Government, the consequences of which are now known and resented throughout the country. However, for the very reason that the failure is widely known and understood, as well as widely resented, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on issues that are already so well aired.

Sir Patrick Cormack: As you, Mr. Speaker, can readily confirm, a vast number of right hon. and hon. Members did not get called during this morning's very brief session with the Minister of Agriculture. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that we will have a statement next week? Will she also convey the news to the Prime Minister that there is a strong feeling throughout the House that, as he has taken personal command of the operation, we expect him to be answerable to the House? The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said sotto voce a few moments ago that the Prime Minister was out driving a JCB. That may or may not be the case, but we expect him to appear at the Dispatch Box to answer our questions and to tell us how he is co-ordinating the campaign.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that for once I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no strong demand across the House for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to appear at the Dispatch Box; there is merely an attempt at mischief-making by Conservative Members on an issue that is genuinely of great importance and concern.
On the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I am as reluctant as any Leader of the House to give undertakings about statements, but I can assure him that I take his point seriously and I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: May we have an early debate on the impact on tourism of intransigent landlords who refuse to reopen their land to walkers? The McLeod estate on Skye refuses to undertake a risk assessment and is depriving walkers such as myself of access to the Cuillin ridge walk over the Easter break and threatening the livelihood of mountain guides such as Darren McAulay and others who are dependent on tourism and walking.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes very well and forcefully. I also note the strong plug that he gives for the work and activities of people who are doing an excellent job. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House although I recognise the seriousness of the matter. He, too, may like to seek an opportunity to raise it in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Peter Lilley: On the principle that the House should be most assiduous in debating matters which Ministers are most reluctant to debate, can time be set aside for a debate on the DTI report into Hollis Industries and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry' s responsibility for it? The right hon. Gentleman hides behind his claim that he did not receive the report, but refuses to say when he was informed of its contents; he hides behind the threat of legal action but


fails to issue any writ; and hides behind advice from officials, whereas it is he who is responsible for the advice that he takes. The last time I raised this issue, the Leader of the House uncharacteristically lost her cool. Will she now, in more characteristic terms, accept that there is a case for an urgent debate on these matters?

Mrs. Beckett: It is kind of the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was uncharacteristic, but I did not lose my cool. I was extremely shocked at what I thought was quite appalling and disgraceful behaviour on his part, as a former Secretary of State, when he attempted to accuse my right hon. Friend—he has just repeated that accusation—of hiding behind advice from officials when he must be perfectly well aware that had my right hon. Friend overruled that advice, especially as a newly appointed Minister in the Department, Opposition Members would probably have a great deal more to complain about.

Ms Margaret Moran: When considering debates on the serious issue of foot and mouth, would my right hon. Friend also consider an early debate on the somewhat strange interpretation of the Government's current regulations by some councils? I refer specifically to South Bedfordshire district council, which is refusing to collect refuse from properties in my constituency, seemingly on the basis that they have the word "farm" in their addresses. In particular, I understand that a fish farm has not had its refuse collected for several weeks nor has Tipple Hill farm, winch is not a farm, but a house which has several horses in its grounds. Does she agree that that is a dangerous and somewhat bizarre interpretation of the Government's regulations?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and pertinent point, and makes it well. I sympathise with the concerns of her constituents; apart from anything else, they are no doubt concerned about the health hazard of uncollected waste. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor, but I suspect that my hon. Friend may find a sympathetic hearing for a debate in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the requests that have been made from both sides of the House for a further debate on foot and mouth in Government time before the Dissolution of Parliament? Members from both sides of the House could then share opinions on the advantages or disadvantages of vaccination and share information as to how this terrible plague was imported to this country. We could discuss how to develop a strategy to prevent the virus from entering the country in future. We could consider certain inadequacies at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to the number of vets available when the plague first broke out. We could also discuss how to protect the pedigree and pure-bred herds and flocks that are so important to the future of agriculture in this country. With the extra time now available, it should be possible to find time for a debate on the Adjournment so that the House can share its views on what is such a serious disaster for the countryside.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I recognise to the full his concern for his

constituents. I am not in a position at present to announce Government time for a debate, although I shall certainly bear it in mind. As a regular attender at business questions, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that no matter how much extra time becomes available, there are always infinitely more demands to fill it than can possibly be accommodated. However, of course, I am very mindful of the need to keep the House informed; the Government look for a variety of opportunities and ways to do that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that at business questions last week, I asked about correspondence that had been unanswered by Ministers because a general election was on the horizon. Although we have a little longer before that event, the problem remains. My right hon. Friend will not be aware that I submitted a question about correspondence affecting a Mr. Nofal, in my constituency. I asked for answers to letters of 13 November, 18 December, 13 February, 20 February and 21 February. The answer was ambiguous; it stated:
I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.
I did not know whether that meant a reply to the letters or to my parliamentary question about them. It turns out that it was a holding answer; I still await my reply.
Furthermore, I have been promised a meeting with a Minister from the Department of Health in connection with the matter. It is of tremendous importance that, before we get to a general election, the issue is resolved for my constituent; otherwise, I shall have to employ other methods to raise his case on the Floor.

Mrs. Beckett: I am very aware of how assiduously my hon. Friend works on behalf of his constituency. I understand his concern if questions have not yet been fully answered. He will be aware that questions to the Department of Health are scheduled for 10 April; that may give him an opportunity to raise the matter.
Although I sympathise with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, his question gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the officials in my own Department, who seem to have succeeded in answering within a short time scale almost 100 per cent. of the letters sent to us. That is a truly remarkable achievement.

Mr. Stephen Day: I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that it is right that the House's consideration of the serious foot and mouth crisis has concentrated on rural areas and those most directly affected—the farmers and communities therein. However, I hope that she will agree that some foot and mouth related issues touch urban areas. She will be aware that, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made that very point to the Prime Minister.
For farms in areas designated as urban, such as those in my Cheadle constituency in the Greater Manchester conurbation, and for businesses that supply rural areas, and are based in places such as Cheadle, it is not clear whether they will qualify under the various welcome steps that the Government have taken to help companies in difficulty. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Lady will be able to accede to the many requests that have been made for a debate in Government time, so that those matters at least can be explored.

Mrs. Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, I am aware from correspondence from my


constituency that people in businesses that might not at first sight seem to be related to the foot and mouth crisis or to tourism have been affected by the change in the business environment. I am conscious that that is one of the matters that hon. Members wish to air. I cannot accede to his request at present, but I do take the issues very seriously.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Last July, there were celebrations for the Australian centenary in this place. On 9 May, it is the 100th anniversary of the state opening of the first Australian federal Parliament. Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Speaker and other House authorities whether there is some way that we could mark that occasion in the House—without any boondoggles, without anyone going there—perhaps by using new technology whereby we could pass a resolution of congratulation? We could use the occasion as a precedent. All too often such matters are left to the early-day motions of Back Benchers, when they merit a greater demonstration by the whole House. Could that matter be examined, as that is an important parliamentary occasion both for the Australians and for us, as well as for other jurisdictions that have flown the nest after seeing the example of Australian independence?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I must admit that I have not given great consideration to the opportunities that he suggests are available through the use of new technology. I am sure that all those who represent the House authorities have heard his suggestion and will consider it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House has announced a debate on the Finance Bill after the recess. Will it be possible to have some clarification about the suggestion that VAT will be added to the cost of hearing aids in the near future? That would increase their cost. It might be a stealth tax, which will certainly punish people who require such aids.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure how easy it will be for the hon. Gentleman to raise that matter during the debate on the Finance Bill. That is, of course, a matter for the Chair. I cannot undertake to give him the assurance that he seeks that it will be possible, but I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Mike Gapes: May we have an early opportunity to consider the remarks quoted in today's Ilford Recorder by the long-standing Conservative councillor in Redbridge, Asaf Mirza? He says that he is
no longer able to apologise
for his party's stance on ethnic minorities. He went on to say that the Conservative party
is narrow minded, lacking in new ideas and stuck in the past",
and that
It is rigid and lacking in communication and they refuse to listen because they do not want to improve the situation.
In contrast Labour is a modern, progressive and broad party that has demonstrated its ability to govern fairly and effectively for all.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Certainly, it is interesting to hear what is being said

in the Ilford Recorder by his constituent. I fear, however, that—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not ask a question."] My hon. Friend asked that we should debate these issues. I fear, however, that as much of what he says is self-evidently true, there is little to debate.

Mr. John Hayes: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could make time for a debate on class sizes. She will know that in many parts of the country secondary school class sizes are at their highest level for 10 years. Indeed, in more than 40 local authorities, the position is worsening sharply or is certainly not improving. The problem is not limited to secondary schools. Upper-age primary schools are also suffering from larger class sizes and a greater proportion of nursery-age children are in classes of more than 30 than there were in 1997. We need to get to the bottom of this matter. Despite the hyperbole before the general election, for the vast majority of children, class sizes are rising rapidly due to the Government's incompetence.

Mrs. Beckett: That is absolute nonsense. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, secondary class sizes have been increasing gradually but steadily for about 10 years, but there is no doubt that the rate of the increase has slowed as a result of the investment that the Government are making. In fact, in many parts of the country—the vast majority—children in the early years of education are benefiting from much smaller classes as a result of the earlier investment made by the Government. However, there is a further reason why there is no necessity for me to make a special arrangement to discuss those matters: oral questions to the Department for Education and Employment will take place on 26 April.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of yesterday's Law Lords ruling, which stated that, under the current legislation, it is legal for the privatised electricity companies to raid pension fund surpluses to fund redundancies? Does she appreciate—I am sure that she will—that some 200,000 pensioners feel ripped-off because the privatised companies are allowed to do that?
I am sure that she will be aware of the excellent Myners report and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agreed to implement all of its recommendations. One states that the Law Commission should review the ownership of surpluses. Will she use her good offices to ensure that the review takes place as quickly as possible, because hundreds of thousands of pensioners want pension funds to be paid to the pensioners, who have paid in all their lives? They do not want large companies to be able to take pensions holidays and raid the funds for redundancies.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is clearly supported across the House. I understand that the implications of that case are as he describes, because I believe that the Treasury has expressed some support for the suggestion that the Law Commission should consider those issues. I would only caution my hon. Friend that sometimes those matters are much more complex than he might anticipate, and I am not clear how speedily that action could be taken. I fear


that I shall not undertake to hold a debate on the matter in the near future, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate not only on foot and mouth, but its impact on the tourism industry? So far we have heard statements from the Minister for the Environment and from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but we have not had the chance to debate that impact. We are now seeing the reality of some of the measures that those Ministers announced, with a great fanfare, especially that on business rates, which will cost Derbyshire Dales district council more than £300,000 to implement. It was alleged that the Government would write off the cost completely, but a large proportion of it will be required from the district council.
We need to hold a debate not only on foot and mouth, but on the very much wider implications of the outbreak, and perhaps an Environment Minister, or even a Tourism Minister, could make the winding-up speech.

Mrs. Beckett: I am conscious of the interest across the House in the wider implications of the problems that are being experienced, not only in agriculture but in other sectors. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, have repeatedly said that, of course, any assistance or support that the Government can give will pale into insignificance beside what is really needed—a return of customers to rural businesses. That has to be the chief focus, but I shall bear in mind his request.

Mr. Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend may be aware that last week, after a two-year investigation, the Office of Fair Trading imposed a fine of more than £3 million on Napp Pharmaceuticals. The OFT found not only that the company had engaged in anti-competitive business practices by excluding smaller companies from the market, but that, in doing so, it had manipulated prices in the national health service, so that it was giving hospitals a 90 per cent, discount for a drug, but charging 10 times that amount out in the community, which accounts for 80 per cent. of the NHS drugs budget.
The OFT found that that practice, involving that single drug, cost the NHS £2 million a year. Will my right hon. Friend arrange to hold a debate as soon as possible so that we can properly assess the overall cost to the NHS of that practice, which is widespread in the pharmaceutical industry. I estimate that it costs at least £50 million—money which is intended to be used in front-line health care, and not creamed off in excess profits by rapacious drug companies.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know that the report of the OFT will have been taken very seriously. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on this matter, but he may have an opportunity to raise the issue in Westminster Hall. I remind him, however, that it is oral questions to the Department of Health on 10 April and he may be able to raise the matter then.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In the absence—according to the right hon. Lady—of the Prime Minister being willing to come to the House or of a debate in

Government time, does she recognise that it is terribly important for all our constituents who are concerned about foot and mouth that we at least have the reassurance that the Minister of Agriculture will definitely be here to make a statement on Monday, before the Easter recess?
Will the right hon. Lady please let us know, or ensure that the Minister lets us know, what precise arrangements have been made for all Members to raise urgent and important issues about foot and mouth and the rural economy during the recess? The MPs' hotline, which has been repeatedly requested, has still not been set up. Surely, it should be well established with sufficient resources before we go into the recess; otherwise, we should be here to ensure that we can represent our constituents' interests.

Mrs. Beckett: As I said earlier, I take seriously the point that has been made. I am as reluctant as any Leader of the House to be absolutely categoric about the statements that might be made, but I have taken on board the hon. Gentleman's observations. I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and not least the point about the MPs' hotline. It was my understanding that arrangements had been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does not work."] If hon. Members are telling me that the arrangements are not sufficiently satisfactory, I will also draw that point to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. David Chaytor: Following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree that the attempt by the United States to abrogate the anti-ballistic missile treaty will have profound consequences for the foreign policy and the defence policy of this country? Although I accept that she has ruled out the possibility of a wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs in the near future, will she give further consideration to the possibility of a more specific debate on national missile defence?

Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to my hon. Friend is what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn): there is probably a better chance of securing a debate on such a more restricted subject in Westminster Hall than on the Floor of the House. However, I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that it is Ministry of Defence questions on the Monday after the recess.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to keep their questions as brief as possible.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for my voice. You told me not to shout the other day, and I cannot do that today.
Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body? She will know that, in a written answer, the Prime Minister promised:
This will be a matter for decision by Parliament."—[Official Report, 16 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 753W.]
She will know that recommendation 8 of the report asks that the matter be dealt with before a general election. Will she therefore return to the spin doctors in No. 10 and


tell them that we need the debate before the general election, so that the Prime Minister does not break his promise and so that Parliament can organise its information technology systems and everything else that is recommended in the report well before the general election?

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that this was matter for the House to decide on at some point. That remains the case, but I do not believe that he gave any undertakings as to precisely when that opportunity might be made available. I recognise the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman expresses and I know that he—along with other members of the Information Committee—has long campaigned for improvements in our information technology arrangements. I am mindful of the review board's recommendation but I am mindful, too, of the fact that, as ever, there are more requests for subjects to be debated than time to debate them.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is there any chance—or am I wasting my time—of having before the general election that required debate on the most recent report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? If we do not have such a debate, those who are in the next Parliament might well regret it.
Will my right hon. Friend also pencil in in her very fine mind the real necessity for a debate on the effects of foot and mouth on tourism? That is a real problem that will not go away. When Members return after the Easter recess, they will be talking about the problems in their constituencies.

Mrs. Beckett: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point, and I have taken on board his request for a debate on privileges. Although I cannot give him that undertaking, I am aware of the tremendous work that he and others have done on that Committee and of their desire for the issues to be aired in the House.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Leader of the House accept that wanting the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the handling of foot and mouth is not mischief-making—rather, it is us doing our job and the Government doing theirs? Foot and mouth has rightly been the lead item on television and radio and in newspapers for the past six weeks. I am in daily contact with farmers and there was an outbreak of foot and mouth in my constituency yesterday. Last Friday, I met 30 business people who are affected by the tourism blight associated with the disease.
In a role reversal, may I draw Westminster Hall to the right hon. Lady's attention? It is not being used on Monday. How about getting the Minister of Agriculture to go there to answer questions in a full debate on the handling of foot and mouth?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I would never suggest that it would be mischief-making to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to answer questions on that subject. Indeed, he just did that. I have taken on board the requests for additional information to be made available and the pressure that there is, naturally, for such issues

to be discussed. However, for Conservative Members to pretend that they think that the Prime Minister should come to the Chamber all the time to make such statements is mischief-making.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Leader of the House induce the Deputy Prime Minister to face up to his responsibilities and explain why Mr. Derek Smith, managing director of London Transport Underground, whom he appointed only two years ago, is submitting his resignation? Is he resigning because he has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government's policy on the tube; because of the antics of the Mayor, who undermined the leadership of the tube by siding with the strikers; or because Mr. Kiley wants a judicial review? What is it? The travelling public of London deserve an explanation, and so do we.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot find time for a special debate. I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is extremely conscious of his responsibilities and exercises them with a great thoroughness and determination. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on Tuesday when we return from the Easter recess.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Last June, the Secretary of State for Health approved a plan of the Surrey and Sussex health care NHS trust to concentrate acute services at the East Surrey hospital in my constituency, largely by moving services from the run-down Crawley hospital. On Tuesday last week, at a meeting with the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), which was attended by local press, the Secretary of State suspended the transfer of those services. Decisions now have to be made about clinical safety and the cost to the trust. It is £10 million in debt and, on the Government's figures, the suspension will cost an additional £600,000 a year. Can we have a debate on the politicisation of the health service because that disgraceful decision was made in the political interest of the Labour party? The people who are served by my health trust should be recompensed for the consequences of that outrageous decision.

Mrs. Beckett: I simply say that I do not see the scope or need for a special debate. I remind the hon. Gentleman that oral questions to the Department of Health are on Tuesday 10 April.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am now getting a large number of inquiries from farmers about foot and mouth and from a huge range of businesses that are also affected by it. Let me give the right hon. Lady an example of the problem: the total aid offered by the statutory instrument on rate relief amounts to £22 million, but the cancellation of the Cheltenham festival cost Gloucestershire £40 million. May I join my 15 colleagues on both sides of the House in appealing to the right hon. Lady to find time for a debate on foot and mouth?
The Minister of Agriculture attended a briefing session yesterday. He stayed for 60 seconds and officials were not able to answer many of the questions put by colleagues. In all sincerity, three quarters of an hour for Agriculture questions this morning is not adequate. A large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House were not


able to ask their questions. My constituents expect their representative to question the Minister. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for time to be made available for the Minister to come to the House to make a statement or, even better, to attend a debate before we break for the Easter recess?

Mrs. Beckett: I have, I think, given every indication that I am very conscious of Members' wish to have further information before the House rises for the Easter recess. As to the other, general issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, I am of course extremely conscious, as we all are, of the scale of the difficulties being experienced, including those outside agriculture. However, I repeat to him what I have said to other hon. Members, which is that the key is to try do everything that we can to revive business in those areas, because it will never be possible for any Government to make up all the losses.

Mr. Christopher Chope: We always have a debate on Welsh issues around St. David's day; why cannot we have a debate on English issues on St. George's day, 23 April? We would be able to discuss the crisis in the English countryside and today's MORI poll, which shows that 71 per cent. of people are in favour of having a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU and 52 per cent. say that they would vote to opt out of the EU, given the chance.

Mrs. Beckett: That is what they laid in 1975, but it did not turn out that way. As for the question whether we need time for a special debate to allow Members to raise English issues, about 80 per cent. of Members in the House represent English constituencies and, perfectly naturally, are raising English issues day in and day out.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House may not be aware that there were a further five cases of foot and mouth disease in my constituency yesterday. Will she join the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), in dissociating herself from the words of a Parliamentary Private Secretary last night? The hon. Gentleman in question said,
I would be asking why obsessive media attention has been concentrated in recent weeks on the fact that hundreds of thousands of our cows and sheep have caught a very nasty cold, with foot and mouth ulcers."—[Official Report, 4 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 432.]

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the quotation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Members throughout the House are conscious of the concern about the disease and the fact that it is affecting not only the rural economy and agriculture but other industries.

Mr. Graham Brady: Given that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment held a leaving party at his Department last week, at which he reportedly told officials that the time had come for him to move on, could he be brought to the House to share with Members the secret of whether a

reshuffle has already taken place without our being informed, or whether he is anticipating leaving office for some other reason?

Mrs. Beckett: We all read these things in the papers from time to time, and I advise the hon. Gentleman not to take them too seriously. If he wants to ask my right hon. Friend about that, he can do so at oral questions on 26 April.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady assist me in investigating the alarming length of time that Ministers are taking to respond to constituency cases? Constituents write to us and use us as a conduit to get a reply from Ministers. I have trawled through my mail and found that I have not received replies from the Secretaries of State for Health and for Social Security since December and January. That is not only a gross discourtesy to the House, but obviously sends the wrong message to constituents about whether Parliament is open for business.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Lady's concern and I will pass on her remarks to my right hon. Friends. I can only say that having for a relatively brief halcyon period shadowed the work of the Department of Health, I am extremely mindful of the vast amount of correspondence that any Health Secretary and, indeed, his shadow receive, and I am conscious that the Department has greater difficulties in that respect than most, not least because the issues raised are of such delicacy that the correspondence is horrendously hard to deal with.

Mr. John Bercow: May we please have a debate on the 99.6 per cent. of British companies which employ fewer than 100 people, account for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and generate two fifths of national output? Given that the last such debate was held in Opposition time in March last year and that the Government's record has been consistently denounced by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Engineering Employers Federation, to name but a few, is it not essential that we have an urgent debate on the sea of regulation which is now deeper and more hazardous than any with which British companies have ever had to contend?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he weakened his argument by referring to unprecedented denunciation being voiced by all those bodies, most of which are highly supportive of much of the Government's programme—although, of course, they express concern about regulation, as they did under the Conservative Government.
I rather think that as we are to have a debate on regulation later today, there is no need to find time for a further debate. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the only debate on the subject having taken place in Opposition time, I recall that, in the last Parliament, there was a period of at least two years—possibly substantially more; it might even have been three or four years—in which there was no debate on health issues in Government time.

Points of Order

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether your calling the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) last in business questions reflects your decision to adopt the principle applied by the last three Speakers of the House of Commons, which is that when an Opposition Member who is a Front-Bench spokesman rises on the Back Benches, he is not given precedence but is called last in debate and last in questions? I have always subscribed to that principle and thought it right, because it required hon. Members to make up their minds about what they wanted to do in Parliament—whether they were on the Front Bench or the Back Bench.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker should never have to reveal what is in his mind. However, let me tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that I worry about the Benches themselves. I am very fond of carpentry and feel that the way he jumps up and down might do a bit of damage to the Benches. I do not worry about damage to his joints—just about the Benches.

Mr. Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that, at Scotland Office questions on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Scotland made a gratuitous, false and insulting attack on me. She associated my name with her own and those of others who had been employed by Robert Maxwell, whereas in fact I had no dealings with him while he was alive. Then she said that I
could have done much to help the Maxwell pensioners",
but my
heels we could not see for dust."—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 167.]
In fact, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I spent five years clearing up the mess that the right hon. Lady and her former employer left behind after he was found dead in the Atlantic and it was discovered that £400 million was missing from the pension funds of the Maxwell group. I set up the Maxwell Pensioners Trust, as a result of which every Maxwell pensioner and employee, including the right hon. Lady, now stands to receive his or her pension entitlement in full, despite the depredations of Robert Maxwell.
I appreciate that accusations minted by the Secretary of State for Scotland are scarcely legal tender and I am not worried about my own reputation. However, notable public servants such as Lord Cuckney, Jane Newall and others who ran the Maxwell Pensioners Trust brilliantly secured the return of the money and the protection of all those pensioners.
I have written to the Secretary of State and asked her to apologise or to repeat her comments outside the House. My question for you, Mr. Speaker, is what protection do we have in the event of such gratuitous insults, which bear on the honour of Members of Parliament and, more important, on the reputation of public servants outside the House?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks how he can rebut a case that has been made against him, but I

would say that he has been able to do so today under that point of order. I cannot become involved in disputes between Members. I was present at Scotland Office questions and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not out of order as far as the rules of the House are concerned. However, the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make his point, and his remarks about himself and others have been put on the record.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. With reference to that occasion, is it not undesirable and contrary to the practices of the House that a Minister or anyone else called to answer should make such a point, which was unrelated to the question that was being asked?

Mr. Speaker: I have absolutely nothing to add to what I have already said to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley).

Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that at business questions last week, I asked the Leader of the House a question about the OECD report on education, which shows that, in many aspects of education, Britain is at the bottom of the league table of developed countries. The Leader of the House replied that my comments criticising the Government were inappropriate because the report
was based on a survey … carried out in 1996".—[Official Report, 29 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 1113.]
On reacquainting myself with that OECD report via the Library, I found that its tables on pre-school education, adults involved with education, school access to the internet and levels of attainment in education all refer to 1998, not 1996. Given that inaccuracy, and knowing that you would not want an inaccuracy to remain on the record, if I provide you with information from the House that supports my point, Mr. Speaker, will you make arrangements for that inaccuracy to be corrected?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to written answers at column 186 in today's Hansard. The Minister for School Standards has given me a pursuant reply, in which she says that the tables that she had given me on school achievement awards "contained inaccuracies"; my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made that point earlier. However, in her reply the Minister does not say that, as a result of those inaccuracies, many of the schools and local education authorities with achievement awards that she lists are not entitled to those awards; we understand that some £2 million was wrongly awarded to local schools. Will you take action, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the Minister issues a further pursuant reply to correct the information that she has given in today's Hansard?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for Ministers' replies. Those are matters for debate, which the hon. Gentleman can take up with the Minister concerned.

Business of the House

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That—

(1) at the sitting on Monday 9th April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received;
(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 10th April——

(a) the provisions of the Order of 20th November 2000 relating to Thursday sittings and meetings of standing committees shall apply as if that day were a Thursday;
(b) there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall;
(c) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received and he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.


Perhaps it would be helpful if I briefly introduced the motion which, I anticipate, will ensure the orderly conduct of business, and is for the convenience of Members and House staff. If the motion is agreed, on Monday 9 April the House will not adjourn until any messages from the Lords have been received. On Tuesday 10 April, it will amend the House's sitting hours to a Thursday sitting which, I hope, will be for the convenience of Members. The motion also makes provision for the House not to adjourn until Royal Assent to any Acts agreed by both Houses has been reported by the Speaker.
There is nothing new or controversial about the motion. A quick search of the journals of the House will show that many similar motions were made in almost every Session of the last Parliament. If Royal Assent cannot be signified during the House's normal sitting hours, the motion provides that the sitting should be suspended until the appropriate time. I hope that the House will agree to the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

REVIEW OF ORDERS

'.—(1) Every order made under section 1 shall include a provision for the Minister to present a report on the operation of the order in the fifth year after it has come into effect and for the order to cease to be in effect if there is a resolution to that effect by either House of Parliament within ninety days of that report being laid.
(2) In reckoning the period of ninety days referred to in subsection (1) above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
(3) The report described in subsection (1) above shall include a review of the effectiveness of the order and of each of the matters set out in section 6(2) above in comparison to the statements laid before Parliament when the order was first made.'.—[Mr. Lansley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to move the new clause, which I tabled with my hon. Friends. In Committee, we had an opportunity not afforded to us on Second Reading to debate some of the purposes for which the Bill will be used by the Government. We did not, in Committee, seek to revisit the question whether the Bill should be wholly deregulatory, or whether it should have the scope to amend regulations in a manner that would create new burdens. We are concerned to use the structure of the Bill to best effect to deliver the objectives on which we all agree—to improve the quality of regulation—and wherever possible, from the Opposition's point of view, to ensure a reduction in the burden of regulation.
New clause 1 deals with the improvement of regulation and would ensure that in the long run it is put within a structure of regulation which helps to reduce the burden on citizens generally. I shall describe briefly how the clause would work and the benefit that it would bring. New clause 1 might be termed a sunset clause, but strictly speaking, it is no such thing. The purpose is not to disapply regulatory reform orders, but to provide that after a time—in the fifth year after a regulatory reform order has come into effect—a report should be made to the House about its effects. The new clause would give either House the opportunity to make a resolution disapplying the order.
The reason why we do not propose a sunset clause, as one might wish to do in relation to burdensome legislation, is that we continue to hope that the power will be used mainly, if not exclusively, for deregulatory regulatory reform orders. If that is the case, a sunset clause would reintroduce burdens that would otherwise have gone.
The new clause provides for review, expressly related to the original purposes for which a regulatory reform order was made. As the House knows, clause 6(2) provides for a substantial range of factors to be examined in relation to the proposal, including the burdens that will be affected and the extent to which those burdens will be reduced. The Bill requires Ministers to apply specific tests to legislation, to establish whether necessary protection is


retained, whether reasonable expectations continue to be met, whether a fair balance is struck between the public interest and the interests of persons affected, and whether, on balance, given the benefits that may flow from the order compared with the burdens that may be created or imposed, it is desirable for the order to be made.
All those tests, and the savings and costs that would result from a regulatory reform order, are to be reported in the document to be laid before Parliament before an order is made.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is the purpose of new clause 1 to investigate the effect of legislation over the previous five-year period, because it is considered that the regulation might be wrong; or is it necessary, as I suspect, because although a regulation may not have a deleterious effect on business when it is introduced, it may begin to do so after a while, as a result of changed circumstances in the business community?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is reasonably obvious that the first of the considerations to which he referred will apply. His point flows directly from the one I was making on the need to examine the impact of the new structure of regulation that will be delivered by the regulatory reform order process, and to compare it with what was intended or expected to flow from it. He was right to say that the structure of activity within industry can change. That is especially important with regard to the burden on business. The burdens that flow from any given structure of regulation can also change over time.
As my hon. Friend asked about the purposes for which the new clause could be used, I should point out the reasoning that underlies the proposed requirement for an order to be reviewed in the fifth year after it has taken effect. It is not simply that sufficient time must be allowed for the impacts to be made and measured, although that is true, but that, of necessity, the provision would ensure that a report on the operation of the new regulatory structure would be presented to the Parliament subsequent to the one in which the order was made.
The new clause does not represent an intention that the structure of regulations or legislative activity should be continually re-examined anew by every Parliament. It is important, however, that, without examining the whole structure of new primary legislation, we should be always looking at the structure of regulation and using the process of regulatory reform orders to try to deliver progressively reduced burdens.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for giving way a second time. The new clause refers to review of the
operation of the order in the fifth year".
Does that requirement imply that there will be no further reviews after the review has occurred? Should there not be ongoing reviews every five years? I fully appreciate that the burden that such a requirement would place on Parliament—if not business—might become quite heavy.

Mr. Lansley: It is not our intention, as will be obvious to my hon. Friend, that the new clause should create a

structure of continuous reviews. Of course, a balance must be struck in terms of the burden that we place on the House and on the civil service in producing the reports to which the new clause refers. We do not want to impose a bureaucratic process for the sake of it.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: rose—

Mr. Lansley: I shall happily give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Deregulation.

Mr. Pike: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman listed all the tests that are applied. Has not the Deregulation Committee in the current and previous Parliaments carried out its duties carefully to ensure that all proposals meet those tests? Is it not reasonable to assume that, in the next Parliament, the new Committee will do its job in exactly the same way. whoever serves on it? If such a five-year clause is to be implemented, could not a similar provision be contained in almost every single other Bill that the House enacts?

Mr. Lansley: As Chairman of the Deregulation Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be only too aware of the structure into which the new clause would fit. He is perfectly right that it is one of the tasks of the House of Commons Deregulation Committee and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the House of Lords to scrutinise in due course the tests that must be met under the regulatory reform orders. It is certainly our hope that the conscientiousness with which those Committees conduct their work will be reflected in the next Parliament, as it has been in this one.
The hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand that the new clause is in no sense intended to undermine the task of the Committees or to suggest that they might not do their job effectively when regulatory reform orders are made. It is simply to reflect the fact that, over time, decisions and judgments can change. For example, the fair balance test applies to the public interest versus the burdens that are imposed on others. Although that balance is expected to be fair and to pass the test, time may show that not to be the case.
To complete my answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), just as we hope to create a review structure for regulatory reform orders, there is also good case for introducing sunset clauses, which create burdens.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the mechanism in the new clause resembles the regulatory impact assessment that the Deregulation Committee sought to obtain from the Government? My hon. Friend seeks an assessment of regulatory impact after five years rather than when the measure is introduced.

Mr. Lansley: It is true that the document that new clause 1 proposes is a review of the regulatory impact. However, my hon. Friend knows that the tests that will be applied and reported under clause 6(2) are wider than conventional regulatory impact assessments. For example, the fair balance test does not test regulatory impact as such, but whether the balance between the benefits to the public interest and the burdens on private persons necessitate making the order. That is also true of benefits that accrue generally when burdens are imposed. A fair balance and


desirability do not exactly constitute the mechanism of a regulatory impact assessment. A judgment must be made about costs and benefits. Ministers must review that after an order has been introduced.

Mr. Brian White: I have some sympathy with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's aim, which is a review after five years. However, the Deregulation Committee or its successor will examine the impact of the orders after three years. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to achieve that is different from the aim of the Deregulation Committee?
New clause 1 would provide for the order to expire. Reintroducing an order after five years in a completely different climate, which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned, may not be the best way in which to proceed. Its effect would be re-regulation.

Mr. Lansley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point, because, as I understand it, the review that the Deregulation Committee proposes would not allow a detailed examination of each order's effects. It would examine the process and the purposes for which the regulatory reform order procedure had been used. I hope that the volume of deregulatory activity under regulatory reform orders will be so substantial that examining each one in detail would be beyond the scope of a review by the Deregulation Committee. A flow of reports that would allow the House to examine the effect of individual regulatory reform orders is a better process.
On reviewing regulatory reform orders differently, future Ministers may find that, in practice, such orders create a new structure of regulation One of the most obvious examples that Ministers have presented is the proposal to re-regulate the complex structure of fire safety legislation. I suspect that Ministers would freely acknowledge that the likelihood of their getting that structure right first time is limited. The prospect of having to return to the process is quite high
2 pm
We are not proposing that there would of necessity have to be the disapplication of the first regulatory reform order on fire safety legislation before bringing in another. It would be open to Ministers to bring forward a new order and to go through the normal process of scrutiny, for example, so as to deliver the objective.
The new clause is intended to introduce a review process, which is valuable in itself. In circumstances where the review gives rise to the conclusion, by Ministers or the House, that the regulatory reform order agreed to previously did not have the benefits that it was intended to have—it did not meet, for example, the fair-balance test, or in the event had removed necessary protection that should have been retained—the best way in which to proceed may be to disapply the order rather than to seek to start again with a new order.
The benefit of the new clause is primarily in the obligation which it lays before Ministers to present a review. Secondarily, it gives Ministers the opportunity to use the simple mechanism of disapplying an order before thinking again about how to deal with it.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a persuasive case for the new clause. Is he aware

that in addition to reflecting the wishes of the authentic voices of British business, the new clause also enjoys vociferous support from Mrs. Marion Rix, the excellent prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Milton Keynes, North-East? That is a matter of importance to the House, as she is about to replace the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) as that constituency's representative in this place.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I would be grateful for the support of the prospective parliamentary candidate to whom he refers, who I know happens to have many positive qualities.
My hon. Friend brings me to an important point. He says correctly that the principle of sunsetting—we are talking of a review provision that allows for that possibility—has wide support. Only about a week ago, the British Chambers of Commerce published its pre-election manifesto, entitled "Empowering Business". One of the organisation's objectives, in the context of a better regulatory environment, is that the Government should
make the criteria for sunsetting regulations explicit and use sunsetting as a norm in all new regulations.
The Institute of Directors has likewise said that it believes that the Government should
introduce a programme of reviewing the regulations that affect individual sectors on a regular rolling basis. This could be every five years. Regulations should have sunset clauses so that they expire unless there is a conscious attempt to renew them.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has talked about the need for a cost-benefit analysis as part of the review, and there was a discussion of fire safety regulation. Does he share my concern that when it comes to fire safety regulation and health and safety at work regulation, in practice it is difficult for Members to take the decision to repeal legislation that may result in someone's injury or death, no matter how small the chance of that event might be?

Mr. Lansley: Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. I shall not be tempted by him to analyse health and safety legislation. I referred specifically to fire safety legislation because it is one of the most prominent examples that the Government have used of the way in which regulatory reform orders are intended to be used.
In this context, it illustrates rather well the importance of such a review procedure, because a regulatory reform order relating to fire safety legislation might be laid before the House to structure the whole fire safety system round risk-based assessment rather than the present prescriptive approach. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that that might be a novel way of trying to address this form of regulation. That is not a bad thing, and it might be a good thing. It would, no doubt, redistribute burdens, in that it would create burdens for some and reduce them for others. Prospective impacts would be expected to flow from it, and they would be speculative. It is, therefore, important to review the operation and structure of such legislation, and I hope that Ministers will recognise the value of the new clause in allowing that to happen.
I illustrated my case with the example of fire safety legislation. However, the new clause also fits with the business community's estimation of what a good regulatory environment should look like because it involves a constant


process of review. That is not the same as the constant downward pressure that the Government should apply to the total regulatory burden, but it is an essential part of helping to achieve that pressure.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing it in mind that the reviews would be held approximately five years after the introduction of the orders, does my hon. Friend believe that they would exert a downward pressure on the number of orders introduced, and that that could have a beneficial effect on the over-regulation of business?

Mr. Lansley: I indeed believe that, for a rather civil-servant, Whitehall reason, among others. I am loth to create a bureaucratic process that creates additional burdens for the sake of it. Far be it from us to do that; we want to do quite the opposite. The process of review by which Departments will have to bring back before Parliament and substantiate earlier decisions and judgments will be a constraint on those Departments under-estimating the costs and impacts that flow from new regulation, or over-estimating the benefits. I hope that such a review process would be a persuasive psychological constraint on those who introduce regulation in the first place.
My hon. Friend's intervention leads me to an interesting point. The five-year period would have a further benefit, because we would have allowed sufficient time to pass to understand the wider impacts of any regulation. There is a tendency, which we discussed briefly in Committee, at the point at which regulations are made, for the discussion of impacts to focus on the direct compliance costs, and the measurable, immediate, direct effects of introducing a regulation. However, the impacts of any legislation tend to be wider and longer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) implied earlier, the impacts tend to be on an industry's relative competitiveness, and the relative costs to businesses.
I shall illustrate that point with one of the most forceful examples of the necessity of re-examining the kind of regulatory impact assessments that have previously been made by Departments. The House will recall the recent passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. At that time, a regulatory impact assessment was attached to the legislation. I have it here. The regulatory impact assessment on part I of the Act states:
Total compliance costs in the short term are not expected to exceed the measure of significance (£20M) used by the Regulatory Impact Unit of the Cabinet Office.
Subsequently, the assessment says of part III:
total compliance costs to business relating to Part III of the RIP Bill are not expected to exceed the measure of significance (£20M) used by the Regulatory Impact Unit of the Cabinet Office.
On the face of it, the 2000 Act seems relatively benign. However, in the course of an examination of the economic impact of the Act, the British Chambers of Commerce commissioned an independent report, to which there were a number of contributors. It was essentially conducted by independent academics. It is interesting to look at their conclusions about the prospective impacts of the Act. They stated in relation to part I that the direct cost to internet service providers over five years would be £640 million.
The report then looked at the costs arising from the technical design requirements that would lead to the diversion of business away from UK suppliers to non-UK suppliers. It said that estimates of the overall cost to the UK vary considerably, but are likely to reach more than £1 billion a year by 2002.
The report's authors considered that the compliance costs in relation to part III were substantially underestimated, and that a five-year estimate would be of the order of £640 million. They then looked at the overall financial implications of the Act. They looked at the losses and leakage, as they put it, to the UK economy from diversion generally and the cost, and put those at a total of up to £46 billion in the first five years of operation.

Mr. White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary has written to the British Chambers of Commerce pointing out that the figures just quoted are greater than the entire internet turnover of the various companies at the time? The figure for leakage is given as 5 per cent. but the figures add up to more than 100 per cent. of current turnover.

Mr. Lansley: This is not the time to examine the whole report, which runs to 35 pages. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the report anticipates diversion not from an existing but a prospective level of business over up to five years. In a sense, he has helped to make my point. The authors of the report are working within a range of estimates of the growth of business for internet service providers over five years.
Given the conflicting estimates of the regulatory impacts over a five-year period, we could find that the Home Office is right and that the regulatory impacts of the legislation over five years are modest. Alternatively, we could find that the costs are at the high end, illustrated by the report prepared for the British Chambers of Commerce, which I agree seem very large indeed. If the report is right about the direct costs of £640 million or the cost of the diversion of business amounting to £1 billion, those figures are orders of magnitude greater than the regulatory impacts foreseen by the Home Office in the report.
We may not know for two or three years whose estimate is right. However, it would be regrettable if Ministers legislated on the basis of one set of estimates and the whole system goes to "fire and forget" when it ought to be the responsibility of the House to look again at the legislation. It is the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that when we have the opportunity to do so, we shall review it for that reason.

Mr. Bercow: We do not need to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book. Is it not the case that the torrent of regulations and the absence of any trigger mechanism for their review prevents businesses from expanding, causes them to stand still and forces many of them to shed staff? Does my hon. Friend agree that even if we leave aside the considerable number of companies that go bankrupt, large numbers of small business owners,


faced with this unfavourable regulatory environment, choose to give up the unequal struggle against the regulatory leviathan altogether?

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a case against the burden of regulation, as he does regularly. He sets the argument in the right context. It is wrong for us to think, as we are often tempted to, about individual regulations while ignoring regulation in general and the overall burden that it imposes.
It is vital, as both my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and my tight hon. Friend the Member for Wells, the Opposition spokesman on trade and industry, have made perfectly clear, to set our regulatory activity in the context of commitments not only to sunset clauses but to regulatory budgets so that we bring down the burden of regulation progressively. That is the only way to unlock competitiveness and bring further growth.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman outlined a range of important issues that need to be addressed. However, does he not accept that his view that deregulation is the only way to success is wrong and that underinvestment has had at least the same impact, if not a greater one, than regulation?

Mr. Lansley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should characterise my remark as suggesting that regulation is the only issue for competitiveness. It is, none the less, important for that. The latest MORI survey of business suggests that the ranking of importance of issues to businesses for their future competitiveness is skills shortages, followed by regulation. He should not underestimate the importance of regulation to business in its future competitiveness.
Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that investment is important. Businesses will find, I am afraid, that the structure of domestic savings in the economy is such that the future prospects for investment are considerably reduced, as is the prospect for private sector investment and consumption, because the Government are crowding out private sector activity with extravagant growth in the public sector.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is more than generous in giving way to me. What is important, as the Prime Minister might say, is to recognise that there is a problem. Is my hon. Friend aware that the World Economic Forum has identified the fact that Britain, which was in fourth place in the competitiveness league for businesses in 1997, when the Government came to power, has fallen to ninth place?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Slvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to the new clause?

Mr. Fabricant: This has everything to do with new clause 1. You will have read new clause 1, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of competitiveness can be combated by new clause 1, which would ensure that regulations that create uncompetitiveness can be repealed?

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. New clause 1 would create a structure of review similar to

sunset clauses and should be applied to new burdens created in primary legislation. It is an important part of creating a deregulatory framework.
Sir Martin Jacomb was instrumental in privatising British Telecom in the mid-1980s. He later became chairman of the Prudential and deputy chairman of Barclays bank. This week, he wrote in The Daily Telegraph about the impact of regulations and bureaucracy on business. I shall refer to only one of his recommendations for turning back the tide of regulation. He stated that home-grown regulations should have sunset provisions built in, that they should be subject to automatic review after a specified period, and that they should automatically expire if not renewed. The Bill is a regulatory measure as well as a deregulatory measure, so it is important to build a sunset review into the structure of regulation.
Finally, I draw attention to the fact that a review provision under the new clause would allow the House to become more aware than hitherto of the burden of regulation as experienced outside. We want to get away from "fire and forget" with regard to regulations, because even now our knowledge of regulatory impacts is limited.
In March, the Minister for the Cabinet Office published the latest of her six-monthly reports on regulatory impact assessments. It detailed the 79 assessments made between 1 July and 31 December 2000—more than enough for six months, one would have thought—but one or two seemed to have been omitted. I was surprised at that, given how comprehensive and thorough she is, so I investigated further.
I found that 20 regulatory impact assessments made by Government Departments were not listed in the report. For example, an assessment was published of a European directive relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. The assessment was signed by Lord Whitty on 5 December 2000, and estimated the cumulative effect of the proposals in annualised costs to UK manufacturers at between £980 million and £1.47 billion, with a price impact on a new medium-sized vehicle of between £420 and £885.
Other assessments of orders or regulations absent from the March report are equally interesting. They include assessments of orders dealing with regulating the supply of number plates, which has a less marked impact than the example that I have just given. Another assessment was of an order dealing with the supply of new cars, which was signed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 31 July. Another missing assessment relates to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in which additional continuing costs were estimated at £74 million a year.
Among the other assessments missing from the report was one of an order relating to a proposal to introduce vehicle identity checks. That order was signed by a Minister in another place from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and its cost was estimated at £22 million a year. Another order—the only one that I could find that benefited industry through a reduction in compliance costs—related to the Gaming Act 1968. Another, dealing with fees for goods vehicles—

Mr. Ken Purchase: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the costs of implementing


regulations to assist disabled people. I remind him that many disabled people have made a huge contribution to the country's economy but, without the regulations that allow them to work, their skills would be lost to us.

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. My purpose is not to debate the merits of the measures, which may be greater than their costs. That relationship is examined when any regulation is introduced. I am sure that he will agree that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was an excellent measure. It was taken through the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I agree that there is a need to protect disabled people in law.
Some of the measures incur substantial costs, but it is beyond many hon. Members to keep track of the regulatory impacts of legislation.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend has given the House a list of orders and regulations subject to regulatory impact assessment. Do most of them emanate from the UK Parliament, or from the EU? Does not he believe that sunset clauses or a five-year review should apply equally to regulations emanating from Europe? Unlike Britain, other countries in Europe do not even try to implement regulations that inflict tremendous on-costs on our business.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government must show a determination to achieve deregulation in British legislation, and demonstrate a willingness to impose the sunset clause structure on UK regulation. Otherwise, they could not argue in good conscience, to the European Commission and the European Council, that a similar structure should be imposed on European legislation. It is vital that we do that, because many of the measures to which I referred emanate from European legislation.
I should clarify to my hon. Friend that I was not quoting from the Cabinet Office report. I was referring to regulatory impact assessments that apparently were made in the relevant period but which did not appear in that report. Some of the regulations and orders stem from domestic legislation, but others, such as the one dealing with changed emission standards for passenger and light commercial vehicles, are made domestically in response to European directives. The RIA in that case found the costs involved to be very large, and the relevant regulations arose from European directive 98/69/EC. The measure was therefore not so much UK-inspired as EU-inspired.

Mr. Bercow: I am relieved that my hon. Friend agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), that the principle of the Bill should also apply to European directives and regulations. Does he agree that, when it eventually does so, it should be capable of retrospective effect? Unless that were the case, the House could not address the legitimate concerns of business organisations about the Part-time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. I am sure that my hon. Friend is intimately familiar with every line of them.

Mr. Lansley: I may be, but then again, I may not. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, although I must confess that I am not often tempted by retrospection. One of the objectives of regulation is to provide certainty and clarity. The greatest uncertainty that one can create for businesses is to make them believe legislation is one thing only for them to find that it has been changed, so I am not tempted to say that we should pursue retrospection. Indeed, sunset clauses are not designed for that purpose but to enable a review of what has occurred to be undertaken so that the necessary changes can be made to achieve a deregulatory effect.
Certainly, if the objective—to which I know my hon. Friend subscribes—is to reduce the burden of regulation systematically and progressively, no doubt he will look to the proposals that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made to apply a regulatory budget to Government Departments. That would have to include the impact of EU measures on the UK. To return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) rightly made, the necessity of taking such measures in new clause 1 and applying them to European legislation should be borne in mind. If we do not do that, we shall have no way of preventing those burdens from being imposed on us by Europe.
In conclusion, it will be apparent to the House that the objective is a measured one. It is not to disapply regulatory reform orders willy-nilly, but to provide for a review process. Business organisations clearly subscribe to the idea of a systematic process of review, as was illustrated on Second Reading by Ministers and Labour Members who claimed to attach importance to the views of business organisations in relation to the Bill. I hope that they accept that those organisations believe that the structure of the legislation would be much improved by a built-in sunset provision. The need for review is clear because—I hope—the volume of regulatory reform orders and their importance will be such that we should not allow legislation to be made without Parliament being aware of its effects.
I hope that the Bill will have a beneficial impact on Whitehall in ensuring that the statements in documents laid before Parliament when regulatory reform orders are first made are as rigorous and justifiable as possible, because Ministers and officials will know that they will be subject to detailed scrutiny against subsequent experience. New clause 1 will therefore help to position the Bill in the structure of the new deregulatory intention that the Conservatives will achieve when we are in government after the general election.

Mr. White: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) began by making a fairly good case in relation to the review, but the longer he continued his argument, the more it revealed the true nature of his intentions. If we are serious about having a review, we should address the way in which the House reviews regulations and the myriad Committees involved. They include the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Deregulation Committee and various European Standing Committees. New clause 1 does not even attempt to do that.
It became clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he continues to confuse content with application. There may be a fundamental argument about content.


The intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) completely confused the content of regulation with its application, and I am glad that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was not tempted down the route that the hon. Member for Buckingham was leading him. I would be the first to say that a great deal of bureaucracy is involved in the application of regulations on health and safety and employment rights, for example, but their content is extremely important. In those cases, the content may be right, but there is an argument about whether their application is the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Bercow: It is always a pleasure to joust with one of my parliamentary neighbours. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with me, and frankly I should be considerably alarmed if he did not, but he is quite wrong to accuse me of being confused as between content and application. I am not in any way confused about this important matter. I strongly deprecate the content of much of the regulation that is foisted on British and Buckinghamshire business and I strongly object to the manner of its implementation.

Mr. White: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not confused and that he is indeed opposed to the content of certain regulations. If a Tory Government were ever to be re-elected and the hon. Gentleman were to get the chance to implement his views, I fear that the country would be damaged by the removal of regulations protecting employees' rights or health and safety. I am reminded of Churchill's comments when he introduced the wages councils. He spoke of the need to introduce regulation in order to stop the worst driving out the good. The hon. Gentleman and the modern Conservative party should look again at the history of their party in providing those protections.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about the content and the implementation of regulation and making assertions about what a future Conservative Government may or may not do. Will he give a moment's consideration to the amount of regulation that the Labour Government have introduced over the past four years? It has increased exponentially. Every business—small, medium and large—complains about it, as does every part of the public sector, including the teaching profession, doctors and hospitals. Does he agree that we have had far too much regulation, and does he not welcome means to reduce it?

Mr. White: I sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which looked at the number of regulations that are made per year—it averages about 3,000, which is the same as under the previous Government. The hon. Lady misses the point that a high percentage of those regulations simply change the level of a fee or have some similar effect. Therefore, it is not enough simply to look at the total number of regulations.
The Deregulation Committee or its successor will consider regulatory reform measures, and that is the appropriate way forward. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to say that review is absolutely critical, but he is wrong to propose the introduction of a sunset clause that would allow re-regulation, which is why I fear that new clause 1 takes entirely the wrong direction.

As I have said in the House, there is a role for a sunset clause in respect of certain pieces of primary legislation, but new clause 1 would not achieve that. Nor does it address the mechanisms with which a review should be conducted. I would argue that the Deregulation Committee's recommendation of a review after three years rather than five is the appropriate way forward and I would urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reiterate the commitment that he gave in Committee to take on board the proposals of the Deregulation Committee.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I rise at this late stage of the proceedings on the Bill as possibly the only hon. Member present who was not a member of the Standing Committee to support the good intention of the Bill and to join my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in urging the Government to go further in a number of significant areas.
I look at the issue with a fresh mind, unclouded by the experience of the Committee. It seems to me that the Bill reflects a considerable amount of common ground between the parties. First, there is general recognition among Members on both sides of the House that the extent, burden, complexity and enforcement style of Government regulations are serious issues.
The story began under the previous Conservative Government. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was appointed to the Department of Trade and Industry in 1992, he created the deregulation taskforce and set up a unit of DTI civil servants to support it. When he became Deputy Prime Minister five years ago, he took that unit with him to the Cabinet Office—the heart of the Government machine. When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, they retained the unit in the Cabinet Office. It is true that they renamed it the "better regulation taskforce", arguing—perhaps ominously—that, whereas deregulation implies that regulation is not needed, in fact
good regulation can benefit us all".
That shift of philosophical perspective has so far not turned out to be as portentous as might have been feared. Lord Haskins and his colleagues in the taskforce and the officials in the regulatory impact unit scrutiny team and in the departmental regulatory impact units deserve our thanks for their continuing work.
A second area of common ground between the parties is reflected in the Bill. The measure builds on the Conservative Government's Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. At the time, the Labour Opposition strongly criticised the Act, but in government—as in so many other areas—Labour has been content to build silently and without acknowledgement on what they inherited, covering their retreat from the asperities of Opposition with the odd name change and the occasional philosophical flourish.
The 1994 Act was an innovative piece of legislation; some of its innovations were clearly experimental—they were always going to require improvement in the light of experience. For example—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating new clause 1 rather than Second Reading.

Mr. Jackson: As I did not participate in the Committee proceedings, I wanted to give some background to my thoughts on new clause 1, but I shall address it directly.

Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend share my view that one of the benefits of new clause 1, in allowing a review


and a simple disapplication of regulatory reform orders, is that it introduces an additional buttress to the supra-affirmative procedure that is at the heart of the new mechanism introduced under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act? At the time and since, the procedure was seen by the House to be exceptional—it was designed for a particular purpose.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend; that is precisely one of the points that I want to make. At this stage of my speech, however, I am suggesting that, as there is much common ground, that may be a reason for the Government to move towards the Opposition on new clause 1.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend helpfully traces the background to our discussion. I have a characteristically non-partisan observation. Of course, my hon. Friend is right to refer to our right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is very important, very senior, very distinguished, very influential, very respected and very busy, but does he agree that one of the difficulties during the tenure of our right hon. Friend was that, although he presided over the elimination of a good many regulations, a substantial number of new regulations simultaneously appeared—not least from Europe? Does that not underline the importance of a structured and strategic approach and of a proper review mechanism? Apparently, that did not occur to our right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. The issue is important. There is a continuing tide of regulatory activity—much of which is justified, but some of which may not be. It is appropriate that there should be proper mechanisms in the House and in the other place to address that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire makes proposals, which I support, to improve those mechanisms, but I want to continue to outline why the Government should acknowledge that there is common ground between the parties on which we can build.
A final and important area of common ground is the way in which the operation of the legislative procedures in both Houses of Parliament has been developed under the 1994 Act. The Select Committee on Deregulation, whose Chairman was in the Chamber earlier, and the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in the other place are examples—I hope, pioneering examples—of Select Committees performing what are, in essence, legislative functions.
The Bill reflects a welcome convergence of views between the parties on both the substance of the matters with which it deals and the procedures by which we address them. Of course, the Opposition would like the Government to go further and faster. Although the Cabinet Office is probably right in claiming, on its internet site, that the number of new regulatory measures significantly affecting business has remained
broadly stable in recent years"—
a figure of 166 in 1999 is given—that is merely a statistical measure; it does not adequately reflect the growth, under the Labour Government, of the burden and complexity of regulation.
The Opposition have opposed that trend as it has manifested itself in successive pieces of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire explained, in the specific area of regulatory reform—the subject of the Bill— we have made proposals to strengthen the arrangements set up in the mid-1990s and maintained by the Labour Government.
The issues raised by new clause 1 are the subject of continuing debate—we have yet to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has to say about it; there seems to be a divergence of view between the Opposition and some Government Back Benchers, especially on sunset clauses, which are addressed in the new clause. I urge the Government to build on the wide common ground that I have described and to give a fair wind to my hon. Friend's proposal, even at this late stage of the Bill's proceedings.
The Government ought to offer a package deal, in relation to which I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire in his intervention. In many ways, the most important feature of the Bill is its provision for the use of new procedures set up under the 1994 Act not only to simplify and reduce the burden of regulation, but, in certain strictly defined circumstances, to apply new regulatory burdens. I realise that the Government are sensitive to the natural concern to which the proposal gives rise—that innovative procedures, which have been working well on the implicit basis that regulatory burdens should be reduced, might be diverted into the expansion of such burdens. That is why we have associated with the proposals all the provisions in clause 3 for necessary protection, reasonable expectations, fair balance and desirability and, in clause 1, for proportionality. That is why the Government made concessions on desirability to Lord Goodhart in the other place.
I hope and believe that it will be possible to maintain all-party consensus on the matter; that is why we want to introduce amendments dealing with the creation of new regulatory burdens—although as that issue is dealt with by amendment No. 2. I shall not address it now. It is clear that the approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire is to build that consensus. The two Select Committees were unanimously of the view that the new powers could be constructively exercised in the spirit of the work that has been going on since 1994.
I draw attention to the reservations, expressed in the Deregulation Committee's third special report, about the Government's refusal to accept a requirement for the provision of regulatory impact assessments. I referred to that matter during an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. The Committee suggested that there should be a link between the new powers desired by the Executive to extend regulatory burdens and the introduction of a new procedure to contain and limit regulatory burdens. That is what I had in mind when I referred to a package deal.
If the type of regulatory impact assessment that is sought by the Deregulation Committee in this place is impractical for some reason, or is too burdensome, surely the Government could look constructively at whether the Opposition's proposal in new clause 1 might offer a more satisfactory alternative. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire explained, the Opposition do not have in mind the simple, sunset provision that was examined and rejected last year by the Delegated Powers


and Deregulation Committee in the other place. The Opposition recognise that a provision for the automatic expiry of all regulatory reform orders after a certain period could create an intolerable burden for Parliament and officials.
My hon. Friends propose a system of automatic post facto regulatory impact assessments, by which the Government have to report on the operation of all orders approved under the new procedures after five years, so that their effectiveness in practice may be considered and their continuing operation approved by Parliament in the light of those reports.
That proposal seems eminently reasonable. It could offer the sort of balance required for the Executive's new regulatory powers under the legislation and also required in the spirit of the joint work on deregulation. In the other place, the Cabinet Office Minister, Lord Falconer, gave a commitment to report to Parliament on the operation of the Act three years after its enactment. We may have to wait for that review before the Government take on board the thinking that is embodied in new clause 1.
I hope that, even at this late stage in our proceedings, the Government will demonstrate that they have an open mind and that they are open to constructive suggestions. On that basis, I commend the new clause to the House and hope that the Government will say that they are willing to accept it.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Hon. Members have said that there is some cross-party agreement about regulation and deregulation. I think that all sensible commentators acknowledge the urgency of removing unnecessary burdens. What disappoints me about Opposition Members is their unbalanced approach to the issue. They focus, properly, on industry, but they do so in an unbalanced way. The regulations and this system of deregulation will affect individuals across the spectrum. They will affect not merely industry but social policy.
The intention behind the Opposition's new clause is to ensure that the Government review regulations after five years. The Opposition keep referring to sunset clauses, with which new clause 1 does not deal. That policy is not acceptable to Labour Members and, in particular, to Labour members of the Deregulation Committee. We are firmly in favour of the constant review of regulations in the bid to get rid of those that are unnecessary or burdensome. The three-year period that the Government have suggested is a much better option, when one bears in mind the continuous regulatory review philosophy.
Therefore, I will vote against new clause 1 and I hope that my colleagues on the Labour Benches and in the other Opposition parties will join me.

Mr. Fabricant: I do not follow how one can have a constant review as the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) has suggested. This Government alone have introduced 3,000 regulations. How could a committee keep so many regulations constantly under review?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). What is at issue is the process. No single committee could do that on its own.

Therefore, we have to establish a culture of regulatory review across all Departments and have a proper structure, in line with that outlined by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fabricant: That culture patently does not exist, which is why the Government have introduced the Bill and I commend them for doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) pointed out, successive Governments have tried to regulate the burden on industry and, as the hon. Member for Eccles said, on other parts of our society, and we all welcome that.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is being extraordinarily gentle with the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). Does he agree that the hon. Gentleman, in a thoroughly unpersuasive fashion, erected an elaborate smokescreen by talking about an on-going review, when the Government are undertaking nothing of the sort? Does my hon. Friend agree that it would at least be a credible earnest of the Government's good intentions in this matter if they were to publish an annual statement of the costs of regulation? The Government do not do so, as they told me in readiness for my ten-minute Bill on 27 April 1999.

Mr. Fabricant: The Government do not produce a cost-benefit analysis of their regulations, just as they do not want to produce one for our membership of the European Union, simply because they do not want to publish whether there is a cost or a benefit for either. As for my hon. Friend's remarks about the intervention by the hon. Member for Eccles, the process of continual review has been singularly ineffective—

Mr. Bercow: Absent.

Mr. Fabricant: Indeed, it has been absent. That is why the Government are trying to change the situation by introducing this Bill. It is necessary, but new clause 1 would strengthen it. I fear that, without the new clause, the Bill would simply be another paper tiger. There is no question but that the new clause is necessary.
As I tried to point out earlier, the competitiveness of British industry—I shall deal with other aspects of our social life in this country—has declined. It was in fourth place in 1997 and now it is ninth, which is a drop of five places. That is serious. To those who say that we are booming and booming, I point out that the first thing that suffers when business, and commerce in general, declines is advertising. It is always the first to go.
Capital Radio plc—an organisation with which I was intimately involved before I came to the House—has had to issue a profit warning and Scottish Radio Holdings, which may be closer to the heart of the hon. Member for Eccles, has also—

Mr. Stewart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman denies it, but I pointed it out only because I thought that I detected from his accent the slightest Scottish connection.
In Scotland too, commercial radio stations have had to issue profit warnings on the amount of advertising revenue that they receive. The first thing that companies do when they start to get into difficulties is to cut their advertising budgets; hence the need for new clause 1.


The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it is not merely industry per se that will be affected; other aspects of our lives will be affected, too. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) talked about fire safety and I mentioned health and safety regulations in an intervention. I greatly fear that, if new clause 1 is accepted and the Government try to conduct reviews in those areas, they will find it difficult.
3 pm
It has to be said that all Governments have the gravest difficulty in handling regulations that have been introduced to produce safety mechanisms for workers and people in general. There is a ratchet effect. No one wants people to be put in harm's way, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has said, there must be a risk assessment—a new approach to the way in which we analyse the effect of regulations on businesses and individuals. However, as we have seen already in relation to the consequences of the Hatfield tragedy, that risk assessment is not easy.
A huge amount of money has been invested, quite rightly, in refurbishing our rail stock and, to some degree, the lines themselves. Given the statistics provided by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, one must consider that, post Hatfield, it is still eight times safer to travel on the railways than on the roads per passenger mile—perhaps I should say per passenger kilometre nowadays.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Oh, don't.

Mr. Fabricant: I shall stick to using the phrase "per passenger mile".
That is the sort of risk assessment that people have to make when considering the possibility of injury or death. If we were to say that travelling on the roads carries a greater risk, the Government would not say that we must close all our roads, because that would be a ridiculous consequence.
The point that I am making—perhaps not very well at the moment, but I shall clarify it—is that there is a risk to everything in life, whether travelling by road, by air, or even crossing a road on foot, and Governments have constantly to assess whether the risk is so great that regulations must be introduced. However, new clause 1 would go further than that. It states that there should be a review as to whether a regulation should be removed, which is a wholly different question. New clause 1 states that, if the review says that something is not worth keeping, the House can consider
a resolution to that effect … within ninety days of
the regulation being removed. That would create huge difficulties for individuals and Parliament.
If there were only a 10 per cent. risk—no, let me go further—if there were a one-in-a-million chance of someone being killed, that regulation may not be laid before the House in the first place. Post facto, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) said, would Members of Parliament have the courage to say

that, with a one-in-a million chance of injury or death, the regulation was not worth keeping if the consequence of its removal was the death of 60 people in this country?

Mr. Bercow: At least part of the valid point that my hon. Friend makes is the fact that something with a benign name does not necessarily mean that it will have a benign content. Does he agree that we should take care not to confine ourselves to the discussion of manufacturing industry or high-tech business, or even of the impact of regulation on the public sector, but that we should be prepared to consider the impact of regulation on agriculture? May I tell him that regular reviews of the integrated pollution prevention controls would be warmly received by Mr. James King of Cowley farm, Preston Bisset, near Buckingham in my constituency, as a welcome, if belated wedding present?

Mr. Fabricant: I can well imagine that Preston Bisset welcomes the very important remark that my hon. Friend makes. Incidentally, I wish Mr. King a very happy wedding in the hope that he might be watching on the Parliament channel—but that, of course, would be out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall not pursue that line further. As well giving a plug for his constituent, my hon. Friend points out that, as the hon. Member for Eccles said, the Bill and new clause 1 would apply to many areas.
We should not underestimate the inability of new clause 1, or any of the provisions in the Bill, to deal with regulations that emanate from the House under a directive from the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has already said that many regulations come directly from EU directives. We in the House must ask ourselves two questions. First, are we gold-plating the directives? Are we making the directives so tough that they provide an imbalance—an unlevel playing field—between this country and other EU countries? Secondly, do we enforce such directives to a greater degree than those in other EU countries, so that, yet again, we have compounded the problem of the unlevel playing field? I should like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire to say in winding up whether new clause 1, which Conservative Members support, would deal with that problem. Could we review legislation that is a direct consequence of EU directives? How could we seek to reverse such orders?

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes some, powerful and cogent points. He is dealing with whether regulations arise from our own domestic Parliament or from Europe. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Many of the regulations relate to agriculture, which is probably the most regulated sector in the EU. Has he any evidence that the United Kingdom tends to implement such regulations quicker than any other member state? I commend the official Conservative agriculture policy, which is now only to implement European regulations at the speed of the slowest European country. Does he think that that would encourage the Commission to issue fewer regulations?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The whole House recognises his expertise in agriculture. I do not claim to compete with him on his knowledge of agricultural affairs, even though there are


many farms in my constituency, but I can give an example that relates to agriculture—food distribution. I beg my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) not to intervene and ask me to mention someone's name, but two years ago—this relates directly to new clause 1, Madam Deputy Speaker—I was with him in Boulogne, where we happened to visit a supermarket with someone else. He—not my hon. Friend—is a director of the John Lewis Partnership, which owns Waitrose. I know that I am trying your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to make the point, which is relevant to the question that my hon. Friend asks, that he was looking at the freezer cabinets in a large supermarket, and it was very clear that they were not complying—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to make is germane to new clause 1.

Mr. Fabricant: I am very conscious of the fact that you think it might not be germane, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is because new clause 1 seeks to level the playing field, as, I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire will confirm. The example of the supermarket clearly shows that France, at least, does not abide by EU regulations. Waitrose and, no doubt, other supermarkets have spent hundreds of millions of pounds in the past few years complying with British and EU regulations, whereas that is not the case at least in that large supermarket in Boulogne.
I hope that new clause 1 will consider not only whether regulations should have been introduced in the first place, but whether they are enforced more strictly in the United Kingdom than in other EU countries. That should form part of the review that is mentioned in new clause 1(1). I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire will confirm that, when European directives are enforced in the United Kingdom, they will be examined in terms of not only their content but their application. That follows on directly from the points—some of them admirable—made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). These are the key issues.
Regulations that are not enforced will not be a burden on industry or society but, if they are concerned with the protection of the individual, they will not provide protection. Not only the content of regulations but their application need to be considered. That means considering whether they are applied not only in this country but in a similar manner in other countries.

Mr. Mark Hendrick: Has the hon. Gentleman done any research or cost-benefit analysis on the speed of implementation of European Union directives in other EU member states? Would he be willing to place that burden on civil servants in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, and I am grateful to him for doing so; he is right to ask that question. I have not done that analysis, but I have read analyses produced by the British Chambers of Commerce, the Engineering Employers Federation and by many other organisations. I am sure that he has read them, too.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was right for the Government to have to conduct such reviews and I say, "Yes, it is right for them to do so." Remember who

pays for government—the taxpayers. Taxpayers, Madam Deputy Speaker, include you, me and the businesses that pay corporation tax. If businesses cannot sustain their business because they are uncompetitive, they will not pay tax. Therefore, it is in civil servants' interests to carry out such reviews to ensure that the tax stream continues to flow and that they continue to be employed, unlike those who would be laid off if we dropped from 9th to 20th place.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend might be interested to learn that, in a report produced for Politeia recently, Nicholas Boys Smith estimated the proportions of the regulatory burden on industry that derived from UK legislation and from EU legislation: half the total cost of £12.6 billion by May 2001 derives from EU legislation.

Mr. Fabricant: That is very revealing. It demonstrates that, if EU regulation were enforced in the same way in other countries and were enshrined in national law in the same way throughout the EU, the burden might be difficult, but it would be equal. Does that not demonstrate that the problem in this country is one of gold-plating and of enforcement?
You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the businesses in the Lichfield area that have suffered as a direct consequence of EU regulation. Does the House believe that we are punching our weight in the European Union, given that we are the second largest contributor to EU funds? However, I shall rapidly move on from that point.
3.15 pm
In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I remind him that an Institute of Directors' press release has pointed out that, not only has Britain become less competitive, but that that has happened primarily because
Britain's tax/GDP advantage has been eroded by the significant increase in the tax/GDP ratio since 1997 (from 35 per cent. in 1996/97 to 38 per cent., allowing for tax credits, in 2000/01) and"—
this is the point—
secondly, the significant increase in labour market regulations.
It does not take a helicopter ride over Stuttgart to see the cars piled up in the Mercedes car parks or a ride over Munich to see the holding stores for BMW cars to realise how much damage regulation has done to the German markets. Sadly, as has been demonstrated by the fall in advertising receipts, that is beginning to happen in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend raises an issue about competition, regulation and what is happening in some European countries—and he mentioned Germany. Is he aware that Germany is exporting its manufacturing industry because of the increased regulation that he has described? The European Union will have to tackle that issue head on if there is not be to a disaster for manufacturing throughout.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right, but I can see from your expression, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I should not expand on the point that she has made other


than to say that I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is found in the United Kingdom, too. We are now exporting work to Hungary and the other Visegrad countries.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's speech has been characterised by the restraint and self-effacement for which he is renowned on both sides of the House. I hope very much that he will not conclude his remarks without reminding us of the scenario that he faced as a small business man in the 1980s. Will he confirm for the record and beyond peradventure that, if he were faced with the decision as to whether to start up a broadcasting business in the context of this Government's regulatory policies, he probably would not do so and he would probably not be in the favourable position in which he now is, having sold it so that he can concentrate 100 per cent. on his duties in the House?

Mr. Fabricant: Again, I see the expression on your face, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I agree with my hon. Friend. The environment now would make it quite difficult for me to start up a business. New clause 1 would ensure that businesses can start up in the future and that those that are already established survive.
The weakness of the Bill is that it is full of good intentions, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was filled with good intentions when he also tried to regulate the number of new regulations—that sounds like a contradictions in terms—being introduced in the House and imposed on business. The importance of new clause 1 is that it would lead to a review after the fifth year and, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, that is important for two reasons.
The first is that it is not always easy to anticipate the effects of a regulation when it is introduced. Secondly—this is an important point—the circumstances of a regulation in a business environment can change. Businesses in 2001 might have to operate in circumstances that are very different from the prevailing conditions in 1997. We have seen that happen time and again. I shall not repeat myself, but this country's competitiveness has fallen from fourth to ninth place.
The new clause is important because it forces the Government to act. However, it has two weaknesses. First, it is not a sunset clause. I want it to be stronger. A review is helpful, but not enough. The new clause should provide for laws to be repealed if the cost-benefit analysis finds that they are an excessive burden on business. Secondly, I am not totally satisfied that the review happens only once. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire did not manage to convince me about that. He conceded that circumstances in a business environment can change after five years, but they can change again after 10 and 15 years. All regulations need to be kept under constant review, but not by the mechanism espoused by the hon. Member for Eccles because it has clearly not worked.

Mr. Lansley: On the possible weakness of the new clause, the other place discussed an amendment moved by our noble Friends to disapply regulatory reform orders if, in the course of a review, they were found to impose much

greater costs than the original statement implied or did not substantially deliver the benefits that were intended. I have to confess to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Fabricant: Oh!

Mr. Lansley: Sorry, he is very much my hon. Friend.
I have to confess that we did not think it right to do that because of the inherent complexity and difficulty associated with trying to measure and quantify costs and benefits to the extent of creating an automatic disapplication.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. When I did an economics degree all too long ago, we examined cost-benefit analyses and it is difficult to make them accurate. There is no question but that if there is "x" number of economists, there will be "x" number of results on virtually everything in a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps that is why the Government are so keen not to accept my Bill, the Analysis of Costs and Benefits (European Union) Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is wandering from the subject.

Mr. Fabricant: On that note, I shall give way.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend mentions the need for regulation to change in the light of new technology. He is an expert on e-commerce. Does he agree that e-commerce and, in particular, the rolling out of the broad band, will change radically the way in which many businesses operate? It will be necessary to review a range of trade and financial regulations. Hence the need for new clause 1 to keep regulations under constant review.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a salient point. There are many examples of the problem, but I shall give just one. Telephony companies know that simple narrow band technology enables people to make telephone calls all around the world using internet systems for the price of a local call. They do not need broad band technology to do that. Telephony companies anywhere in the world, such as AT&T Communications and British Telecom, know that their days are numbered for charging premium rates for long-distance and international calls.
New clause 1 would enable us to review the regulations that established Oftel when British Telecom was privatised and the telephony companies were freed up. However, as my hon. Friend says, circumstances have changed and they will change again in five years. You can bet your bottom dollar—or, regrettably in 10 years' time, your bottom euro—that circumstances will continue to change. It is not simply the rate of technological change that is relevant; the way in which companies undertake business will also change.
I shall confess to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am a great admirer of Margaret Thatcher and was a Thatcherite in the 1980s, but what was right then is not right now. Economies move on and circumstances change. I have no doubt that I would have been a member of the Labour party—old Labour—had I been in politics in 1900, but things change. As economic circumstances change—often driven by technological changes—so the


effect of a regulation on a business changes. A cost-benefit analysis might not have a positive flow in five years' time and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, that will change again in 10, 15 or 20 years.

Mr. Bercow: I understand my hon. Friend's revisionism, and far be it from me to chide him for it. However, does he agree that it is important not to misrepresent—even if only inadvertently—the stance of one of our most distinguished noble Friends? To avoid doubt, does he agree that our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven is an enthusiast for new clause 1?

Mr. Fabricant: Yes.
I have probably spoken for long enough. The Bill is excellent, but toothless. The new clause would give it some teeth. If the Government oppose it, that will demonstrate that they merely have good intentions—as did the previous Government—to control the amount of regulation. It will show yet again that they are all about spin with no delivery.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I want to make a brief contribution to this excellent debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), I, too, did not have the benefit of serving on the Committee and it has been interesting to listen to the arguments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I want to respond to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). I like him enormously; he is a good guy—no doubt I have now blighted his career. However, he chided the Opposition for concentrating too much on the business aspects of regulation. In an intervention I tried to point out that regulation affects every aspect of our lives, and I gave one or two examples. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks on the business aspect of regulation and the part that new clause 1 can play in ensuring that regulation is reviewed and, if possible, removed to assist business.
3.30 pm
My whole background is in small business. My father worked down the pits in County Durham, came south during the depression and worked in Birmingham. Eventually, after the war, he founded his own very small company at spaghetti junction with two partners. My young life, at weekends anyway, was spent going into "the works", as we said. It is perhaps that background that leads me to reflect on the fact that my constituents and organisations that represent businesses tell me that they are overburdened with regulation of one sort or another. I know that the point has been made several times during the debate, but I am reflecting it from my own particular experience.
The previous Government and this Government have made efforts to restrict the amount of regulation. I admit that the previous Government's attempts were not overly successful, if they were successful at all. I have no doubt that Members in this place and the other place work extremely hard on the Deregulation Committee. However,

industry and business—small, medium and large—have not seen the benefits of the Committee's labours; they have not seen effective, helpful deregulation.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is kind to the members of the Deregulation Committee when she points out how hard they work, and I have no doubt that they do their job most conscientiously. However, she will no doubt want to know that whereas before the last general election, the Committee received a substantial number of deregulation and contracting-out orders, that number has since dwindled away to virtually nothing. The Committee will have to gear itself up if it is to make a substantial number of regulatory reform orders in future.

Mrs. Winterton: I hope that my hon. Friend knows me well and indeed I hope that I am a kind person. I believe in saying nice things about people whenever I can find something nice to say. However, I said in my next breath that although the Committee's work was to be commended, it had not been very effective. My hon. Friend has pointed out precisely how ineffective it has become of late. I trust that the Bill, including new clause 1, which naturally I hope the Government will support, will contribute towards reducing regulation.

Mr. Ian Stewart: rose—

Mrs. Winterton: I give way with great pleasure to that nice, kind man, the hon. Member for Eccles.

Mr. Stewart: Calm down. Does the hon. Lady agree that the effectiveness of a particular Committee is determined by its work, not its work load?

Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am inclined to view the Committee's work as business views it, and to ask whether business feels the good effects of its work, so I might not judge the work of that Committee, of which he is a member, from the same point of view as him.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) made an interesting and philosophical intervention, but does my hon. Friend agree that work and work load are intimately linked? If a Committee is overburdened, it might not he able to produce any good work or, for that matter, bad work simply because the system will become blocked.

Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he brings me neatly to my next point, which was made earlier in the debate. As he said, if a Committee is overworked, its output will be affected. The over-regulation of business takes up the time of the Executive, costs money and adversely affects companies' output, which affects their profits, which go back into investment. I believe that the hon. Member for Eccles pointed out earlier how important investment is. He will know that cash flow is equally important for small businesses.

Mr. Bercow: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), my hon. Friend has been rather kind to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). Does she agree, however, that no man should judge in his own cause,


so the hon. Gentleman's rather feeble self-justificatory efforts should be treated with due circumspection? Does she accept that the Deregulation Committee now does too little work because it is too little interested in the responsibilities with which it has been charged? Frankly, a majority of the members of the Deregulation Committee do not believe in deregulation.

Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and overall I agree with him. The focus that Baroness Thatcher placed on deregulation when she came into government has been lost over the years.
Returning to new clause 1, it is encouraging that many organisations that represent business men support the idea of a sunset clause. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has tried to interpret and refine that concept into a power of review after five years, which is the essence of new clause 1.
I note that the British Chambers of Commerce, which recently published its manifesto, is very much in favour of the loose description of the sunset clause. The manifesto broadly states that the first priority should be simplification of the tax system, and there is a hell of a regulatory burden in that. The organisation believes that business compliance costs should be considerably reduced and that there should be regulation only when it is absolutely necessary. I should have thought that the first question that should be asked by any Government who are about to introduce regulation is whether it is absolutely necessary. The British Chambers of Commerce believes that when regulation is necessary, the lightest of touches should be used. I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles that regulation is needed in some cases, but it must be good regulation, it must be properly considered and it must not be onerous. It must fulfil the purpose and no mores.
As I pointed out earlier, the British Chambers of Commerce believes that we need fully to engage with the European Union to ensure that it promotes business competitiveness. If that happens, it will take a long time. I am 60 and my mother is 91, so I hope that the EU will consider business competitiveness as a matter of urgency, rather than letting Europe become more and more uncompetitive compared with the rest of the world.

Mr. Fabricant: If when I am 60 I have a complexion like my hon. Friend's, I shall be a very happy man. Does she agree with me and, more important, with the Institute of Directors, which shares my belief, that the review mentioned in new clause 1 should not be a one-off event? In its submission, the IOD states that we should
Introduce a programme of reviewing the regulations that affect individual sectors on a regular, rolling basis.
Does she agree that what is important—as the Prime Minister would say—is that because circumstances change regularly and nothing remains constant over time, reviews are needed, not as one-offs, but continuously and for as long as the regulation exists?

Mrs. Winterton: The IOD is most enthusiastic about the concept of rolling reviews, but I believe that if we take the first step set out in new clause 1 and implement a review after five years, that will bring in its wake a

beneficial effect on regulation. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, I prefer to leave matters as they are in new clause 1 and not to pursue that course any further.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I usually agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who is a man of great charisma and intelligence, but I believe that in this case he is wrong. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) leaves that point, will she reflect on the fact that a review is needed only if there is a regulation, and that if there were no regulation in the first place, no review would be needed? The whole problem is that one needs sunset clauses to get rid of regulations only if there are too many of them. Does she agree that the purpose of new clause 1 is not to act as a sunset clause, but to ensure that we do not have so many regulations that we have to get rid of them?

Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a strong case and I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with him. I have tried to say that what everyone—including the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business—wants, rightly and properly, is less regulation to he introduced. My views and those of my hon. Friend marry well together.

Mr. Steen: As usual, my hon. Friend has encapsulated in a few seconds what many of us have taken hours to say. Is not the point that this country is burdened by too much bureaucracy and regulation? Is it not amazing that while Opposition Members talk about trying to reduce the amount of bureaucracy, the Government are introducing a Bill that will extend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Let us get back to the new clause.

Mrs. Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall say only that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has made his point in his own inimitable fashion.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has made a point that I have heard few make previously, which is that if the EU makes too many regulations, it will, as a trading block, become uncompetitive with the rest of the world—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with new clause 1.

Mrs. Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Other hon. Members have touched on the important subject of agriculture. We all know the circumstances currently prevailing in the countryside, but my local farmers have been telling me for years that they have imposed on them regulation after regulation—most, if not all, of which originate in the EU, I hasten to add, but which are frequently gold-plated by the United Kingdom Government for the simple reason that we in this country have an ethos and custom of obeying regulation.

Mr. Hendrick: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman disagrees, but he has obviously not travelled far on the European


continent, as I did during my years as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture. Had he done so, he would have seen that the amount of regulation that is implemented in other EU countries is quite minimal compared to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hendrick: I speak as one who has served as a Member of the European Parliament, visited all 15 EU member states and legislated in Europe. That we obey European legislation and other countries do not is a myth that is constantly peddled by the Opposition.

Mrs. Winterton: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I consider him to be part of the problem. If he swans around Europe with his eyes closed, he will come to the House and make such ridiculous statements. Perhaps he should speak to representatives of small, medium-sized and large business and to farmers and hear what they have to say. I assure him that the views that they would express would not chime with his.

Mr. Hendrick: rose—

Mrs. Winterton: I shall be delighted to give way again to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not if the purpose is to have a European debate.

Mrs. Winterton: We shall abide by your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We live to fight another day and in another arena.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will not rule me out of order. It is my hon. Friend's submission that the concept embodied in new clause 1 is that, with the effluxion of time, legislation will wane and ultimately die. Is that a process that she would want to be applied to European rules and regulations that have been passed by the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I really do not know how the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) managed until the arrival of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), but I congratulate him on having at last focused on the right target.

Mrs. Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I favour new clause 1 because, as I see it, it will strengthen the Bill, go some way to tackle the amount of regulation that has been discussed, and exert downward pressure on the amount of regulation that remains on the books. It would provide a good mechanism—one that might not be perfect, but which will strengthen the Bill. I shall now rest my laurels on my case. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments made today and that he will indicate that the Government intend to accept new clause 1.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The need for the new clause becomes stronger all the time because of the accelerating tendency in the Government to pass primary legislation that allows for secondary legislation to be made by order. To my mind, that is an unwelcome trend, which betrays

a certain sloppiness of thought when Ministers introduce legislation. I think that that is the root of many of our problems.

Mr. Steen: Is not my hon. Friend really saying that the whole concept of the Bill and the reason why we proposed the new clause are to prevent a system whereby the Chamber is bypassed by secondary legislation, which would extend law-making powers by extending existing rules and regulations and running them parallel to new laws passed by the Chamber?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has far more experience in this field than I do—although I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I have many years' experience in business and have suffered the imposition of regulations—many of which were unnecessary—by successive Governments. I think that the new clause is especially relevant and that my hon. Friend is right.
If there were greater precision in our legislative process, the need for secondary legislation would not be so great. That precision has been considerably blunted by the Government's tendency increasingly to rush legislation through the House without proper debate. That has been accelerated by the increasing use of Henry VIII clauses—hence the need for new clause 1. To my mind the use of such clauses is even more reprehensible than the ordinary use of secondary legislation, as they permit the alteration of primary legislation by secondary legislation without reference to the House. New clause 1, which deals with reviewing all that regulation, is therefore particularly important.
I hope that the House will accept that I have a pedigree on the subject. Several years ago, under the excellent auspices of the Industry and Parliament Trust, I was at a lunch at which I sat next to some senior Boots executives, who asked me about the role of a Member of Parliament. I said that a Member's role is to pass legislation only in extremis and, furthermore, to repeal a lot of existing legislation. The new clause will be beneficial as it will force Ministers and civil servants to look at all our legislation, particularly secondary legislation, to see whether it is still necessary or relevant.

Mr. Bercow: May I encapsulate my hon. Friend's argument in a slightly different form? In reflecting on the merits of new clause 1 and the proposed review mechanisms, does he agree that Opposition Members are guided by the philosophy enunciated by our noble Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby—to wit, that the business of government is not the government of business?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree entirely. One reason for the fall of the Roman empire is simply that it was shackled by bureaucracy. Had it had regulations such as those proposed in new clause 1, it would have had to review all its legislation and perhaps it would have continued a great deal longer.

Mr. White: rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not really want to go too far down that path. If the hon. Gentleman's remarks are relevant to the 21st century, I shall happily give way. If they pertain to the Roman empire, I will not. Which is it?

Mr. White: I am curious. The hon. Gentleman is talking about new clause 1; it relates to the Bill, which deals with the removal and reduction of burdens. However, his argument relates to regulations in general. How will his proposals and those of his hon. Friends tackle regulations under the Bill, not the generality of regulations?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient and allow me to develop my argument, I shall come on to that precise area. I shall therefore answer his question in a little while.
We need to look at the culture of regulation, which stems from the increasing tendency to blame and litigate that emanates from America. We seem to need a regulation to try to cover every aspect of every conceivable thing that could go wrong, instead of leaving it to individuals to make sensible decisions—those individuals are hammered heavily when they transgress general and basic rules—which is a better way to go about our legislative process. I also commend the idea of self-regulation, which can work particularly well for businesses and does not always need the Government regulations that would be reviewed by new clause 1. There could be more self-regulation, for example, in relation to lifts and hoists regulations. That may seem obscure, but it would make businesses regulate themselves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I need to underline a point that has already been made to the hon. Gentleman in an intervention. New clause 1 relates specifically to clause 1 of the Bill, so it is not in order for him to go wider than that.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Indeed not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Briefly, if we did not have regulations in the first place, new clause 1 would not bite and we would not need to pass the Bill. Before moving on, may I cite, in half a sentence, the lifts and hoists regulations, which, by insurance, allow businesses to regulate themselves, so government does not need to interfere in regulations on maintaining lifts and hoists. I commend that principle to the House.
New clause 1 also bites on the proportionality of regulation, and tackles the issue of regulation going beyond what is necessary to deal with the problem. That is often the case because, rightly, we have a culture of honesty in this country and tend to gild the lily when introducing European and domestic legislation. If, as I said, we left it to individuals to make up their own minds, we would get on a great deal better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I have already ruled on the matter to which he is now alluding. I must remind him to look at the Bill and remember that new clause 1 relates to clause 1 of the Bill and nothing else.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, clause 1 refers to order-making powers and new clause 1 refers to the need to review those powers. A major proportion of those orders come from Europe, so it is difficult to have a debate on reviewing orders if we cannot discuss the mechanisms of the origins of those orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall try to offer the hon. Gentleman guidance. The powers that are being

sought in the Bill are ostensibly to reduce regulations. New clause 1 is directed at a qualification or limitation of that. That is all that the hon. Gentleman may allude to.

Mr. Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for further clarification to help my hon. Friends and me? Regulatory reform orders are designed to reform legislation, including reimposing or creating new burdens in circumstances in which Ministers believe that that strikes a fair balance between the public interest and other benefits. Opposition Members believe that new clause I would require review of regulations in circumstances in which additional burdens are created.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was merely trying to advise the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that he has to tie his remarks on the new clause to the clause in the Bill to which it refers. That is the sole point that I am trying to establish. It seems that he—and, on one or two occasions, other hon. Members—have tried to make a more general point than is allowed.

Mr. Steen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, clause 1 is not about reducing regulations, as was said by the Chair, but about increasing them. Strangely enough, although the Bill is supposed to reduce the number of laws in this country, it will have exactly the opposite effect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, but a matter of debate. The House can go only by what said in the text of the Bill, to which I was referring. Of course, the new clause also relates to that text. That is what the debate should be about.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am a little clearer, but I am not totally clear. Clause 1 states:
Subject to subsections (3) to (5) and sections 3 to 8, a Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for the purpose of reforming legislation".
The new clause states:
Every order made under section I shall include a provision for the Minister to present a report on the operation of the order in the fifth year".
As a lot of directives and regulations from Europe are, to my mind, covered by clause 1 and new clause 1, it is difficult to discuss the amendment without discussing the vast bulk of our order-making powers, more than half of which come from the European Union. If one cannot discuss the mechanisms by which they come from the EU, it is very difficult to have any debate at all about new clause 1.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) presented a compelling argument by saying that it was important to consider both the content of regulations under new clause 1 and the way in which they are implemented in the United Kingdom compared, by inference, with other countries?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who made that cogent and powerful point in his speech. It is a secondary point. The first point is how the regulation is framed, whether it be from the domestic Parliament or from Europe and whether it is


all-encompassing or not. I would prefer regulations to be more general and, when individuals transgress them inadvertently or stupidly, the power of the courts, including the European courts, should be brought down on their heads. Regulations are implemented by the French, Germans and other European countries in a more general way. We tend to implement them in a more specific way.
The second point is that if regulations are framed in such a way as to be specific, and we enforce them to the letter, we are doubly gilding the lily, in respect of both domestic and European legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is right.

4 pm

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If we are speaking about reviewing sunset clauses, which is the purpose of the new clause, how does my hon. Friend believe that we will accomplish that, bearing in mind the fact that more than 50 per cent. of regulations come from Europe? Can we do what we want to do under the new clause if 50 per cent. of the rules and regulations are outside our powers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must try to redefine the debate. The terms of new clause 1 relate to regulations that might be created under clause 1 of the Bill, not to the generality of regulations that may exist. I am anxious that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and other hon. Members should confine their remarks to that.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek further clarification, as this is the kernel of our debate this afternoon. May I take it that although it would not be legitimate to dilate upon them, it is in order to animadvert to past directives and regulations which are on the statute book and which affect people in businesses in this country, as justification in the development of the argument for the review mechanism that we commend to the House in new clause 1?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To animadvert is possible, and in the course of two or more hours, the occasional animadversion might be permissible, but excessive animadversion would be out of order. I hope that that is clear.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Animadversion or not, the gravamen of the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is a useful adjunct to the debate.
The new clause is necessary because there should be a certain discipline among Ministers and civil servants. When they introduce a regulation under primary legislation, they should consider whether the regulation needs to be permanent, or whether it deals with a temporary problem that will pass as a result of new technologies.

Mr. Steen: We are on to an important point, and I would not like my hon. Friend to leave it without further consideration. Many of the rules and regulations coming out of the House apply to social services, supplementary benefits and so on. They must constantly be repealed and

replaced. Under the new clause, they would, through the passage of time, end without the need for further legislation.

Mr. White: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) trying to make up for the fact that he missed the Deregulation Committee and the Standing Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) knows that that is a point for debate, not a point of order—

Mr. Ian Stewart: It is a point of fact.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tolerated quite sufficient in the way of sedentary comments from the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). I hope that he will now maintain a decorous silence.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Eccles—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) would be better advised to leave me to decide on rules of order.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I had intended to make a five-minute speech, but I have been speaking for almost a quarter of an hour. I shall try to keep my remarks concise and in order, for which I am sure you would commend me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) brings me to my next point, which concerns the culture among civil servants and Ministers with regard to the making of orders. The new clause will cause them to consider whether the orders that they propose to introduce are of a long-term or a short-term nature. Including a sunset clause in a regulation introduced under clause 1 will make everyone think hard whether the order needs to be introduced in the first place, and whether it should be reviewed and revoked after five years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes cites the example of social security legislation. The other area in which orders are continually made and remade is criminal justice legislation. We seem to have a criminal justice Bill in the House almost every year, and certainly every other year, and many such Bills contain order-making powers. The House is often required to alter what it has done in the past, by amending primary legislation.
If everyone who introduces legislation would think more carefully about it before they introduced it, which would be the impact of new clause 1, it would do us all a huge favour. Who knows?—perhaps we would not need to sit so many days in Parliament, because we would introduce fewer regulations, have fewer Committees considering statutory instruments, and fewer debates on the Floor of the House. That would be a good day for everyone.
Secondary legislation is introduced upstairs, sometimes by way of affirmative procedure and sometimes by way of negative procedure. There seems no good reason why a particular set of regulations should be introduced under the affirmative or the negative procedure. By ensuring that


the regulations were reviewed, the new clause would require Ministers to make it clear why it was necessary to introduce them under the negative procedure.
As you know from your many years in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is much more difficult to overturn secondary legislation made by negative resolution. Secondary legislation made by affirmative resolution can be debated and amendments can be tabled, whereas that is not the case under the negative resolution procedure. Under the latter, it is not possible to introduce amendments; it is simply a matter of voting for or against the statutory instrument in question.
When the Government have as large a majority as the present Government have, the new clause becomes even more important. It prevents an overbearing Executive from introducing regulations that subsequently turn out to be faulty. Democracy is about trying to introduce better legislation and better regulations.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He heard our hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) speak about the need for a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken as part of the review of regulations. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that so many statutory instruments effectively give the Secretary of State a blank cheque to impose levels of fines, and to increase or decrease the power of a regulation, thus making a cost-benefit analysis so much more difficult, precisely because of the imprecision of the statutory instruments?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. I always thought that it was enshrined in legislation, but perhaps it was merely a convention of the House, that when a Bill—primary legislation—was introduced, its cost implications had to be stated. That is rarely the case with orders—statutory instruments that we discuss upstairs. Almost always, the Opposition of the day have to probe the Government about the cost implications. That is where the gravamen of the new clause lies. If people have to decide whether an order should remain in place five years after it was introduced, circumstances may have changed considerably, and they will have to think in terms not only of risk assessment, but of cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend reminds me of a further reason and justification for our insistence on the new clause. He rightly referred to statutory instrument Committees. Will he confirm, drawing on his personal experience as a member of the Opposition Whips Office, that it is becoming increasingly common in Standing Committees on delegated legislation for the Minister winding up the 90-minute debate deliberately and calculatedly to refrain from answering the questions asked by the principal Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and simply and limply to say, "I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but will he approve the measure in the meantime?"

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with new clause 1, either.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: One of the reasons why the new clause is necessary is the need for a cost-benefit analysis.
It is often difficult to obtain from any Government source information about the cost of a particular measure. The new clause would require a report to be prepared at the end of five years, and I hope that that report would include a cost-benefit analysis. If it does not, I do not see how a proper assessment can be made about whether an order should remain in force.
Although cost-benefit analyses have an important role, an even bigger part is played by risk analysis. Orders and regulations are often introduced to try to prevent a particular disaster or risk. A risk analysis is, therefore, important to us as legislators and also to the public, who will want to see that we are introducing good legislation. Politicians are often not very good at putting orders in perspective. BSE is a good example. The previous Government were criticised for not implementing properly the regulations that the Labour Government drafted in 1979. However, we were implementing the regulations in accordance with the best scientific evidence that was available at the time. Scientific evidence often has to be interpreted on a risk-analysis basis. A human has less chance of catching Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from a cow with BSE than he has of being killed by lightning.
Perhaps regulations should more often be reviewed on the basis of risk analysis. To put such analysis in context, politicians must often distil difficult and complex arguments into relatively simple concepts, so that the public can understand what we are doing. If the public do not understand what regulations seek to achieve, but are suddenly inadvertently caught out by them, we will, in my terms, have introduced bad regulations. Those are precisely the regulations that should be dealt with by the new clause.

Mr. Lansley: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the new clause would require a review to be made in relation to the statement required by clause 6. It would, therefore, cover a post facto review of costs and benefits. He makes an important point, as clause 6 does not require any risk assessment to be made in relation to regulatory reform orders. Interestingly, however, one of the five consultation papers issued in anticipation of provisions in respect of the letting of business premises under section 57 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 includes a risk assessment, although that requirement is not set out in the Bill and the other four consultation papers do not refer to it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a great de al of experience in these matters, for raising that issue. His comments reinforce the points that I am making. Not only do we need to include a risk analysis in the quinquennial review, but we need to ensure that it is presented in terms that ordinary members of the public can understand. It seems to me that regulations are often drafted in such convoluted terms that it is difficult for anybody except a lawyer to interpret their precise meaning. That is another reason why we need the new clause. The regulations should be drafted in terms that ensure that they are effective. If they are seen not to be effective, that is a very good reason why they should be reviewed after five years.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. James Gray: rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire.

Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the main merits of the periodic review, which will occur at five-year intervals, is not only that we can reconsider the policy content of the measure in question, but that we will have the opportunity, to paraphrase the late, great Sir Winston Churchill, to delete language up with which we should not be obliged to put?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that it was George Bernard Shaw who said that genius is simplicity and that any fool can make things complicated. If we, as legislators, bore that maxim in mind more often, we might produce better legislation. For example, as the tax rewrite Committee parallels the Select Committee on Deregulation, could not that principle be applied more broadly to regulations? One of the factors that should be borne in mind in respect of the quinquennial report is whether the regulation is effective in terms of being regularly understood and sensibly drafted. If we can ensure such effectiveness, we will all be doing a better job.

Mr. Gray: I have been following my hon. Friend's comments with great care. He makes a strong point, but I fear that he cited a poor example by speaking about BSE and the CJD deaths. If the new clause were implemented, the regulation in question would be subject to five-year review. However, many of the tens of thousands of regulations that are in place today, many "up with which we shall not put", affect only minute areas of life and could be left out of the statute book altogether. Should it not be those regulations that fall at the end of the five-year review, rather than those that affect catastrophically important matters?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If I may say so, my hon. Friend makes a different point. My first point was that scientific evidence and technology move on. We live in a world in which change is occurring at an increasing pace. I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield to speak about e-commerce—a theme that I want to develop in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) makes a different point. The fact that we seem to make regulations that affect every aspect of people's lives is important People's morals, attitudes and life styles can change enormously in five years. Thus what is appropriate now might not be seen to be appropriate in five years' time. That is an especially good reason for introducing the new clause.
Finally, I should like to speak about technological change. I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield to speak about e-commerce. I believe that, in respect of a raft of financial and trade legislation, e-commerce will rapidly change the way in which we do business. The movement around the world of electronic information and hundreds of millions—or even billions—of pounds at the touch of a button will produce a need for regulatory authorities to be very much quicker on their feet.
They will have to think much more quickly about existing regulations and whether they need to be changed. That, too, makes the case for new clause 1. Nowadays, a transaction can take place in one country and be electronically billed in one currency to a second country with a different currency; it can then be settled in a third country and delivered in a fourth country. That makes regulation difficult. Our patterns of trade are changing, and that makes the need for a quinquennial review even greater.
A culture of blame and litigation is growing in this country; that unfortunate trend stems from the United States of America. We should resist it. The Bill goes a long way, but not all the way, towards that. It would be greatly improved by new clause 1, and I hope that the Minister will provide a cogent and detailed response.

Mr. Bercow: It is a delight even at this late stage to contribute to the debate. I shall begin by placing my remarks in context. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) opened the debate with skill and reason. He was followed in characteristically thoughtful fashion by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is sadly no longer in his place. He was a distinguished member of the previous Government, and he reminded us of their approach to such matters. His speech was followed by a powerful oration from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who was duly succeeded by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
I shall not indulge in any personal asides that would cause your brow to furrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that, passionate opponent of regulation though I am, I do not object to being frequently regulated—the regulation is periodically reviewed—by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. She made the case in a formidable fashion, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
I regret the tone of Labour Members' speeches. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) knows that I hold him in considerable affection and esteem, but there was much belated and retrospective special pleading from Labour Members. They did not focus on the justice of the case and the sequence of historical events that led to the growing clamour for a review mechanism as proposed in new clause 1. They appeared to wish to dam it simply by referring to the work of the Deregulation Committee. However, that Committee's perceived feebleness, inadequacy and comatose deliberations partly led to the current troubling position. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire proposed new clause 1, about which I have much to say. Before I do that, I give way to my senior colleague.

Mr. Steen: As a member of the comatose Deregulation Committee, I agree with my hon. Friend's epithets whole-heartedly. I am sure that he realises that the reason for our new clauses is well illustrated by the Committee's behaviour. Only one regulation has been repealed this year, and only one last year. Yet more than 2,500 new regulations were introduced by statutory instrument this year. Our case is made.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point with which I agree. I am getting old and my memory is not what it was, but I cannot recall whether he was present for Scottish questions earlier this week.

Mr. Steen: I was not.

Mr. Bercow: I am sure that my hon. Friend had pressing business elsewhere. However, had he been present, he would have heard a brief exchange between the Secretary of State for Scotland and me. That exchange was not carried on all the news bulletins, but it was significant because I argued that the massive increase in regulation justified a review mechanism and a reconsideration of the wholly inadequate approach that the Government have adopted thus far. By contrast, the right hon. Lady, who oozed smug complacency—I apologise for the serious understatement of which I am guilty—believed that the Government's record was fine, that we had nothing of which to complain, and that business was queueing up to congratulate the Government on the merits of their policies. That is not the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has a long-standing background in small business, knows well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who has not been in the House as long as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), not to be lured by his wiles into moving away from new clause 1, which is the focus of the debate and specifically relates to the regulations in clause 1?

Mr. Bercow: I shall not be lured by the wiles of any hon. Member, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I stress that I am always and unfailingly constrained and guided by the wisdom that you generously volunteer in a paternal fashion towards me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I worry about your furrowed brow, so I shall not test your patience with a lengthy dilation on the philosophical background to the case for new clause 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, brilliant though he is, is known for a certain restraint, self-effacement and reluctance loudly to speak up for his point of view or his record. I therefore hope that he will not mind if I do it for him. He has a strong background in such matters, not least through his experiences as deputy director general of the British Chambers of Commerce. He was a distinguished occupant of that post. He knows that the authentic voices of British business genuinely desire deregulation and review of the existing encumbrance of regulation, which damages our companies. I shall consider that important subject later, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred, not entirely accurately, to the stance of my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, and I wish to explain briefly that the Opposition have three guiding lights or mentors on new clause 1.
No debate on regulation, deregulation, enterprise or the development of entrepreneurial potential would be complete without reference to Dr. Ludwig Erhard, the post-war Chancellor of Germany. He first devised the idea of a deregulatory mechanism and the need to apply it across the board to administrative imposts and burdens,

which crushed small businesses. He argued that there should be an on-going review of the burden of regulation on companies in his country.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes the point that new clause 1 will apply prospectively to all new regulations. Most 1egislation is prospective. On the Erhard principle, does he believe that the new clause should also be retrospective and apply to all existing regulations?

Mr. Bercow: I certainly do. I am glad that my hon. Friend and I have a symbiotic relationship. He correctly anticipates a point on which I intend to dilate. There is good reason to do that, simply in the terms that the late Dr. Erhard articulated. I do not want to take his name in vain because he is not a Member of Parliament; he is sadly no longer with us and therefore in no position to speak for himself. However, it is legitimate to refer to the historical record. As a student of history, my hon. Friend will know that Dr. Erhard talked of the urgent need for "a bonfire of controls". He will know also, as you will testify, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the full majesty and authority of the Chair, that it is difficult—indeed, thus far I think that it would have been considered impossible—to apply a bonfire to things that do not yet exist. It is eminently impossible, of course, to apply a bonfire to things that exist but of which one wishes to be rid.
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would like to argue—I have taken note of your earlier strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that new clause 1, relating as it does to regulatory reform orders and the review thereof, has the potential to apply to a number of the burdens that are now on the statute book and that are costing British businesses dearly, of which more anon. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is becoming itchy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with new clause 1. We are not having a stand part debate. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be directed to the new clause. The debate has continued for almost three hours, and there is a danger that repetition will creep in. My ear will be ever more attuned to it.

Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noted that guidance and I assure you that I will be bound by it. I do not want to suffer a grisly fate.

Mr. Steen: I do not want to suffer a grisly fate either, but I want to get to the bottom of a matter that troubles me, as it should the whole House. How does my hon. Friend think that the new clause would work with European regulations that are passed by the House? They comprise more than 50 per cent. of the rules and regulations that apply in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bercow: That is an important point, to which I want to turn. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me and not regard it as impolite if I do not do so immediately. There is a reason for it, which is that there is an attempted chronology to my speech. There is a sequence of events and arguments through which I want to take the House. I have not yet reached his point but I promise that I shall make my best endeavours to do so. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not, through their interventions, seek to prevent me from adumbrating the three inspirations for the new clause.
I have mentioned Dr. Erhard, and I need to say no more about him. However, it is legitimate in this context to say that one of the people to inspire new clause 1 was Walter Lippmann, who was a regular commentator on this subject. It was he who said that in a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men, it administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs. He should, of course, have referred also to women, but the gravamen—to quote my hon. Friend. the Member for Cotswold—of his argument was sound. That is to say, as Lord Lawson of Blaby has regularly said, that the business of government is not the government of business. The new clause derives inspiration from those two individuals and from Baroness Thatcher.
I turn to the Government's stance. The Bill is of great importance and the new clause, which seeks to improve it, is of inestimable value. In these circumstances—I say this with no disrespect to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office—it is disappointing that we are not graced with the presence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose responsibilities include such matters She has a deep background in the Department of Trade and Industry. She sidled into the Chamber in ghostly fashion earlier but has now left it. That is a pity, but I will say no more about it.
There is a basic difference—it informs the entirety of our debate so far—between the Government's attitude to the new clause and the attitude that has been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. It is a divide which legitimately, but from the opposite point of view, the hon. Member for Eccles picked up. It was dwelt upon also by my parliamentary next door neighbour, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). They are saying that Conservative Members are somehow guilty of failing properly to distinguish between the process of regulation on the one hand and its content on the other.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East accused me personally of being guilty of that confusion. I explained clearly, so as to brook of no contradiction, that I was not in any way confused and that I am critical both of the Government's process and procedure in relation to regulation and of much, though not all, of the content of the regulations that they have rammed through the House since 1 May 1997.
The hon. Member for Eccles was keen to argue that all that was necessary was to look from time to time at the procedure whereby a regulatory reform order had been implemented. I fundamentally disagree, and I shall explain why. However, I shall not do so before I have heard the pearls of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the process and content of legislation but its enforcement that determines how hard it bites on the individual or on industry? For example, if the regulatory authority goes looking for people who transgress, that is much more rigorous enforcement than merely waiting for transgression to occur.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see no connection between that point and new clause 1. I insist that the hon. Gentleman sticks strictly to new clause 1, otherwise I may have to resort to the Standing Orders.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not be tempted down the wrong path. I shall stick to new clause 1.
It is not a question only of process, but of content. It is precisely because we believe that Parliament can periodically review—and take a different view—on the merits of regulation that we argue for new clause 1. It is a direct response on our part to the position that was explained by Lord Falconer of Thoroton in the other place. I can succinctly encapsulate the difference between us and the Government on the new clause.
Lord Falconer is on record in the 10th report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, in relation to the Bill, on page 6 at paragraph 1, as saying:
I undertake that that report
that is the report that he is saying should be published every three years—
will cover the operation of the order-making process and any associated constitutional and procedural issues.
In fairness to Lord Falconer, he does not leave the matter there—this is the root of our dissatisfaction with him—but explains:
I do not think that it would be right for such reports to reopen matters of policy which had been debated fully during the consultation, scrutiny and approval stage of the order-making process.
I think that he is completely wrong about that. If a Government have an idea—perhaps in relation to matters of regulation—they may issue a Green Paper or a White Paper and there may be a wide-ranging debate, with perhaps exchanges on the Floor of the House. Eventually the Government of the day may decide to introduce legislation of a regulatory character. Some of it will be introduced as secondary legislation, possibly even involving the negative procedure to which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I so strenuously object.
Lord Falconer's view is that once that is done, the only issue left to consider is whether the procedural requirements of the initial statute that we passed have been complied with in full. I do not accept that. Of course it is right that we should consider whether the procedural requirements and the spirit of Parliament in the initial enactment have been honoured. However, we should be prepared to do more than that, otherwise we are in a sense—I do not want to make a Second Reading point—flouting the very principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which is that Parliament should have an opportunity from time to time to return to a point. In relation to new clause 1—on which I am very focused, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Government are guilty of an ostrich-like mentality. They are burying their head in the sand, and failing adequately, if at all, to listen to the legitimate voices of criticism of their policies. That is disappointing.
We should not need new clause 1, but we do. Why do I say that we should not need it? This is directly relevant to the potential of, as well as the need for, the new clause. In April 1997, in "Equipping Britain for the Future", Labour's business manifesto, the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), said:
We will not impose burdensome regulations on business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down.


Nineteen months later, on 25 November 1998, in one of his final shots as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said to the House:
we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
The problem with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as you, with your acuity will readily discern—is that there is a massive contrast between the rhetoric and the reality. If that initial pledge had been honoured, we would not be debating this Bill this afternoon. We would probably be doing something else. For certain, we would not be debating the merits or otherwise of new clause 1.
The position that the Government take is not commended by, or even acceptable to, the representatives of business. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you are an exceptionally experienced parliamentarian, that it is popular sport for Members of Parliament of all political parties to invoke third-party support to back up their arguments. My right hon. and hon. Friends do it, and Labour right hon. and hon. Members do it. I find it irritating and irksome, but it is not uncommon for members of the Government to quote business spokesmen in support of their economic and industrial policies.
In relation to new clause 1, I think that I am entitled to quote some support. I have already referred to the distinguished commercial lineage of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. At least as pertinent for the purposes of our debate is the stance of the current leadership of the British Chambers of Commerce. I have what might be described as news hot off the press for the purposes of our exchanges today. I had a conversation with the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce on this matter on the Sunday before last. It was at 7 am and we were in the green room in readiness for interviews on "The Sunday Programme" with Mr. Alastair Stewart.
I said to the director general, Mr. Chris Humphries, whom I hold in high regard, "It is good to meet you. You are probably aware that we will soon debate the review mechanism for regulatory reform orders, and our advocacy of new clause 1. You might also be aware that, on 8 March last year, in a debate on the regulatory business, I prayed you in aid." I am not apologetic about that, because what he said—among other things that he has said since—was that despite their rhetoric, the Government had dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small businesses' competitiveness.
Mr. Humphries made that statement on 20 January last year. More than 14 months on, there has been no material improvement; if anything, there has been a regression. Further regulations have been introduced; further statutory instruments have been rammed through the House; and further businesses have either gone bust as a consequence of regulation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going way beyond the terms of new clause 1. Ritualistic reference to it every now and again is not a substitute for debating it. The points that he is making are much wider than, and not appropriate to, this debate. I say that for the last time.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be guided by you.
Earlier in my brief remarks, I suggested, in agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, that new clause 1 could and should apply to existing regulation. That is fundamental to our debate. Of course we are concerned to minimise future burdens, but we are informed in our views, guided in our assumptions and encouraged in our arguments by our assessment of what has already taken place.
I think that I remember your helpful distinction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following a point of order from me, between dilation and animadversion. I know that animadversion is all that I shall be permitted, and that is all that I seek from you. However, it is fundamental to why I believe in the new clause and why I have told a number of constituents this week that I intended to speak in support of it. Many existing regulations, whatever their purpose, and whatever their impact—so far as their immediate beneficiaries are concerned—are implemented in such a way as to inconvenience, burden and make less competitive our companies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have been over this many times, and I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the new clause relates to the regulations that may or may not be made under clause 1. I do not wish to hear him go beyond that.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will be guided by that.
However, this is obviously a matter of considerable dispute. I had a discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about it. It is his view, as shadow spokesman for Cabinet Office matters and the parent of the new clause, that if it were passed by the House, it would be capable of rolling back the frontiers of a number of existing regulations. That is all that I have in mind to say on that. I was talking about some of the regulations that have regularly been debated in the House.

Mr. Gray: You have correctly pulled my hon. Friend up once or twice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for talking about previous regulations. However, does he agree that the only way to see the true value of new clause 1, and understand why it is so essential that it should form part of the Bill, is by referring to previous regulation of one sort or another—in business, agriculture, or other areas—that would have fallen off the edge and so no longer have borne down on our people had new clause 1 existed at the time? It is only by using such regulations as an example that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is inadvertently overruling the ruling that I have given.

Mr. Gray: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In which case, he has not heard it and I will repeat it. This debate, which is a narrow debate despite its length, has to focus on the relevance of new clause 1 to clause 1. This cannot be a general debate about regulations.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by which I stick. I simply


make the point that one of the reasons for believing that we need to be better protected in the future than we have been in the past is that we rue that past experience. That is a point about which I have regularly expatiated, not least in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a variety of forums. I will not talk about the parental leave directive, because you will not permit it, and it seems that I am not to be permitted to talk about the merits or demerits of the Part-time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Let me say again, for the avoidance of doubt, that I will not talk about them. However, they are uppermost in my mind when I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire that I believe that the new clause makes good sense.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: When I was making my speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred to clause 6, which is mentioned in new clause 1. Clause 6(2)(a) refers to
the burdens which the existing law affected by the proposals has the effect of imposing".
Does my hon. Friend agree that every new regulation has the incremental effect of imposing extra burdens?

Mr. Bercow: That is certainly true. I do not know whether we are about to have what is described in the parlance of basketball as a time-out, in which consideration of the position can be undertaken, but in the interim, I will continue—

Mr. Lansley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bercow: I will—very conveniently.

Mr. Lansley: As my hon. Friend referred to advice that I may have given him about the uses new clause 1, let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that its purpose is to require a review by reference to the matters set out in a statement laid under clause 6(2) of regulatory reform orders. As you have quite rightly directed us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that does not mean that we can discuss regulation willy-nilly, but only those regulations that might be affected by regulatory reform orders made under this legislation. The Government have helpfully set out 51 possible measures, and there may be others, but we cannot discuss the merits of every regulation.

Mr. Bercow: I offer my hon. Friend the bouquet that that is helpful, although I couple it with the brickbat that it is only partly helpful. I will not talk about previous regulations because that, apparently, is not in order. However, subject to your guidance and authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I am entitled to say that the representatives of business have been arguing for a reduction in the regulatory burden and for a regular and consistent review of imposts ever since the Government took office. I am not making a narrow and partisan point. You know that I am neither narrow nor partisan, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage referred earlier to what happened under the previous Government. I intend no discourtesy to someone who is very senior, distinguished, important, respected, influential and busy, with many commitments and a very full diary—namely my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley

(Mr. Heseltine)—but he did not come up with the review mechanism proposal that has wisely occurred to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. If he had done, we might not have needed to debate this today. However, I think that I am entitled to point out, as in business questions earlier today I had occasion to, that representative groups for British business want such policies to be introduced. Whatever they think about the Government's attitude on other matters, whatever their view about the European single currency or late payment of commercial debt and interest charged thereon, they are of one mind about the need to tackle the burgeoning and damaging phenomenon of over-regulation. The British Chambers of Commerce has called for the introduction of a review mechanism. That is what the new clause would do.
We should not overstate the case. We in politics are given to exaggerated ambition and no little rhetorical hyperbole. I do not indulge in it myself, but I am conscious that others do. It is not that I think that as a result of the introduction of the review mechanism proposed in new clause 1 the situation would be perfect. The new clause is not a panacea. It is an incremental measure; indeed, the president of the Adam Smith Institute, Dr. Madsen Pirie, would describe it as a micro-incrementalist measure. It does not take a holistic view and it certainly does not take a wildly radical view. It is rather piecemeal; it is not a provision for sunset clauses, which I originally commended to the House in my ten-minute Bill on 27 April 1999.
I do not want to open up a division with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire on this subject, because we are both on the Conservative Front Bench. I am a very junior spoke—a minor cog in the wheel—whereas he is a senior and celebrated member of the shadow Cabinet. However, we both sing from the same hymn sheet. I think that he believes that it is better to have half a cake than no cake at all. He is taking a cautious, reasonable, tactical approach to a long-standing problem.
In trying to devise solutions to the problem of the sea of regulation confronted by business, we have to run very fast to stand still. That point was made in a different context by my noble Friend Lord Biffen in relation to public expenditure. The same difficulty in bearing down on existing spending totals applies to regulations. There is a natural leviathan tendency in government. Ministerial advisers are usually keen on more regulation, direction and legislation, for it is, in a sense, their very raison d'être—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant with the hon. Gentleman. I have suggested to him on a number of occasions that he has been engaged in irrelevance. I now directly invoke Standing Order No. 42, to remind him and the House that any hon. Member who persists in irrelevance may be required to discontinue his speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not oblige me to go down that path.

Mr. Bercow: I have no desire to do so, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for showing me the yellow card rather than the red. I have no intention of courting further disfavour.

Mr. Lansley: Before my hon. Friend concludes, I want to assure him that our views on sunset clauses are not


remotely inconsistent. If regulatory reform orders have a substantial deregulatory purpose, we would not want to invoke a sunset clause simply to disapply them after a period of time, as we would want the deregulatory purpose to be sustained. However, orders may be introduced that impose new burdens, and the expected benefits may not flow from them. Under those circumstances, does he agree that our deregulatory purpose would be best achieved by the new clause, which would allow them to be stopped when that happened?

Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree, and my hon. Friend's point makes good sense. There is therefore no difference between our views.
My final category of remarks relates to whether the review mechanism in new clause 1 applies to future regulation and legislation flowing from the European Union. It is important to clarify that. I have no interest in debating the European Union. I have pronounced on that topic often and occasionally at length.
The House must consider two crucial enabling devices relevant to the debate—article 3(b), on subsidiarity, of the Maastricht treaty, and the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality which is an annexe to the treaty of Amsterdam. We should hear more about them.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend rightly touches on a point mentioned previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). It seems to me that EU legislation that has direct effect would not be susceptible to regulatory reform orders, so the new clause would not apply. However, other EU measures require domestic legislation in this House. Does my hon. Friend agree that they could be implemented by regulatory reform order, in some circumstances, and so be subject to the new clause?

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I like to make short speeches, and I have now concluded this one.

Mr. Steen: I could not face incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House finds what I have to say helpful: if not, I shall not continue. However, in the past I have found that the House finds the odd observation helpful.
My concern has always been the number of rules and regulations passed by the House. I have been a Member of Parliament for very nearly as long as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that the House exists to pass more rules, regulations and laws. A real deregulatory process would mean that hon. Members did not have to spend so much time in the House. When Britain had an empire, the House did not have to sit nearly as long.
5 Pm
We now have a very complicated society with an increasing number of rules and regulations. We are making more laws and sitting longer. The purpose of new clause 1, as I understand it, is to reduce the amount of legislation on the statute book by providing that after five, four or three years, legislation can be removed from the statute book. I cannot understand why anyone would

oppose that concept. Nor can I understand why right hon. or hon. Members would not want there to be less legislation, unless they had concluded that its removal would put various sections of society at risk and that more laws meant increased safety, hygiene and security. Despite the fact that we have passed a great deal of legislation on hygiene, the incidence of health epidemics such as BSE and foot and mouth disease has increased. Indeed, there seems to be a direct correlation between the amount of legislation that we pass on hygiene and the incidence of sickness, ill-health and food poisoning.
I am making a perfectly reasonable speech, which I hope the Minister will respond to in his reply to the debate, if he gets the chance to speak. I am very keen on sunset clauses and reviews simply because they might reduce the amount of legislation that remains on the statute book. When the Conservatives were in office, we talked about deregulation, which meant fewer laws. We are now talking about reducing legislation by the effluxion of time.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Steen: If it is a useful point.

Mr. Cash: I hope that it is. It may interest my hon. Friend to know that I too wish to speak in the debate because in 1984, within a few months of being elected, I introduced the Small Business Bill, which dealt specifically with the reduction of legislation, as my hon. Friend may recall. He may even have been a signatory to it. Furthermore, I have even written a pamphlet on the subject, on which I can dilate at great length.

Mr. Steen: There are very few subjects on which my hon. Friend has not written a pamphlet. I am delighted that he is here today and that he hopes to contribute to the debate. I shall make a short speech. I am not interested in extending the debate because I think that all the points have been covered from every possible angle, but I am concerned about why the Government are not in favour of new clause 1, which would reduce the amount of time, effort and energy that we devote to debating and passing legislation. I should have thought that most right hon. and hon. Members would like more time away from this place, but it seems that Labour Members would like to be here day and night, seven days a week, producing more and more legislation. The new clause is about less legislation.
I make one simple point that I have made before. I have sat on the Deregulation Committee, and for four or five years I chaired the Conservative Back-Bench committee that tried to reduce the amount of rules and regulation by secondary legislation, but the new clause is much cleverer. As I understand it, it proposes to write into primary legislation a means of getting rid of legislation if it is no longer relevant. That is an advanced and progressive way of thinking. Under the Bill as it stands, the Government would have to find parliamentary time to cancel a rule or regulation that they had passed either on the Floor of the House or through secondary legislation. I can see that hon. Members are listening to what I am saying and I am quite sure that I am striking a chord with them, but I would love to give way to the Minister if he could tell me why I have got it wrong.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has got one simple fact wrong. The Labour Government want to spend less and less time in Parliament, producing more and more regulation. Would not it be better to spend less time in the House and produce less legislation?

Mr. Steen: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; that is what I should like to do. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, which passes thousands of rules and regulations. I want those to be reviewed every five years; otherwise, we shall have even more books of legislation that someone will have to repeal—probably us, when we return to government.
The new clause is a sensible provision that any reasonable person would want to support. I am not making a party political point; I do not want to extend the debate—heaven forbid! However, after listening to it for several hours, I am at a loss to understand why the Government have set their mind against a progressive, radical, thoughtful, attractive and helpful provision and why they want to allow the Bill to be passed without amendment. It would allow the Government to keep all the existing rules and regulations and extend them—a type of gold-plating—without primary legislation.
The Bill is a device that is completely contrary to the new clause. It will allow the Government to multiply rules and regulations with ease; if 2,500 rules and regulations a year are introduced by Europe, the Government can turn them into 50,000—a nightmare progression. I do not say that the Government would want to do that, but the measure will give them that power.
I want less Government intervention. The new clause will reduce the amount of Government intervention in our lives. It will free us from the bureaucracy and official enforcement that control our lives. That is where the difference lies. The Bill would extend the powers of the state; the Opposition's new clause would reduce the powers of the state. I do not know whether that point is helpful, but I think that it is the essence of the new clause. It is amazing that I could make it so forcefully in only nine minutes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will also have the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I had not intended to speak in the debate—I had planned only to listen carefully to the arguments. Before I became a Member of the House, I was in business and travelled widely around the world, and I have to find a country that was regulated to prosperity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on his excellent, short and pithy comments which went to the nub of the debate.
Some Members believe that the state is a real agent for good, while others think that more good comes from individuals. I was especially struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick), which contrasted completely with my experience both outside the House and as an MP. I have received so much correspondence from businesses worn down by excessive regulation that I think that the new clause will benefit many businesses—especially small ones that cannot cope with regulation.
Much regulation and legislation is drawn up with the best intentions, but it is never subsequently reviewed. Despite the comments of the hon. Gentleman, there is no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of many of my business constituents, that legislation is gold-plated.
We should not go too far into the origins of legislation, but I want to draw the attention of the House to one point. On one day, 1 November last year, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny—on which I served with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—passed 78 documents within two minutes of the beginning of our meeting. With the best will in the world, we could not have gone into the intricacies of how that legislation would bear down on businesses that are trying to be competitive and make a living.
Specific practical examples have been missing from the debate. If you will bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will cite two examples—one that has happened and one that may—of legislation that would benefit from new clause 1. It would ensure that there was a mechanism retrospectively to assess the impact of legislation and improve it. The first example is the regulation on integrated pollution prevention and control, which claims to be following European Community directive 96/61. When that came into force, the National Farmers Union said that
for practical purposes, most mistakes or unintended consequences cannot be remedied.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue on that line as it is a Second Reading point. He must confine his remarks to new clause 1, which is in turn confined not to regulations made elsewhere or in the past but to those that could be made under clause 1.

Mr. Paterson: I listened carefully to your strictures to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) among others, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be careful to cite two examples that show how new clause 1 could help, as the debate has been general. As I understand it, new clause 1 relates to clause 6(2), which refers to
burdens which the existing law affected by the proposals has the effect of imposing".
I am not test to tempt your patience, but I am trying to give a practical example that shows that, by agreeing new clause 1, we would improve existing legislation that is causing trouble.
The NFU said that most mistakes or unintended consequences could not be remedied. New clause 1 would offer a mechanism for remedy. The NFU continued:
The Commission's zealous attitude towards compliance with the letter of the law means that the financial consequences of mistakes or unintended consequences from European environmental legislation tend to fully impact on the affected sectors.
If new clause 1 is added to the Bill, that lacuna about which the NFU is concerned could be corrected. The NFU continued:
In combination with UK legislation requiring the costs of regulation to be fully recovered from industry, this means that in the agricultural sector farmers bear the full financial consequences of deficiencies in the drafting of European environmental legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) picked up on that point.
I am trying to be practical by mentioning a real case. New clause 1 would enable us to improve and review that IPPC legislation and assess the costs to the agriculture


sector. That point was brought home again to me by a business that wrote to me to make four brief points. The letter reads:
My main concerns are … Cost of registration and ongoing fees being completely out of line with current agricultural cost.
Surely new clause 1 would tackle the worries on that point.
The second point—this falls absolutely within the remit of new clause 1—that is made in the letter is:
Nobody can tell me what … impact this will have on my business bearing in mind we are meeting all current environmental legislation.
Those lines alone justify the new clause. The person running that business is complying with all the current legislation. It is a successful business, but it is having difficulty competing with competitors here and abroad. No one can say what that important legislation will do to the business. The new clause would provide a mechanism, although it might not come in time. My worry is the five-year time limit. Many regulations have an impact within the first couple of years.
The third point that is made in the letter is about the cost of legislation. It states:
The expected cost to our business at current rates will be approximately £100,000 registration fee and £40,000 annually thereafter.
That is a substantial cost to a small farm business. New clause 1 would bring transparency to the process. Instead of pushing the legislation through, as happens at present, hoping that business gets on with it, and then reading some worrying stories in the press a few months down the line, we would at least have a chance to rethink. I cannot see how any sane person can oppose that.
We need more business, more enterprises and more activity, especially when there are such problems in agriculture. The problems were bad enough before the foot and mouth outbreak, but they are extreme at the moment. There is a depressed, crushed feeling among many of my constituents, who believe that there is no escape from regulation. They write letters to me; I can speak and vote in the House. but there is no comeback when regulations are passed. New clause 1 would give them hope, although I am concerned about the five-year gap. I should like the review to take place more frequently.

Mr. Steen: Every year.

Mr. Paterson: We should bear in mind the fact that the current directory of European legislation is 1,278 pages long, so the burden of carrying out the review every year would be too great; it would be impractical. However, my hon. Friend is on the right lines because the worry is that much of the new legislation introduced is not properly scrutinised and the consequences are not thought through.
5.15 pm
I should like to cite one more case, but I think that, sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will tell us that new clause 1 will not cover it. It is the very interesting case of a

regulation. As all hon. Members will know, one of the worries in agriculture in recent years has been the closure of small abattoirs; some of the problems of foot and mouth have been caused by the excessive movement of beasts around the country to large units. The general consensus is that small is good in that sector, yet we have seen the wholesale devastation of the sector, mostly by regulation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going far too far. I can anticipate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), by saying that new clause 1 applies only to regulations introduced under clause 1. I have allowed the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) to cite some illustrative examples, but he has now had his ration of them.

Mr. Paterson: I am making a desperately serious point. The measure that I shall mention will have a dramatic impact on many small businesses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the ruling that I have given. He has, regrettably, heard me more than once, but the fact is that I have to try to focus the debate on the matter before the House. New clause 1 relates to regulations introduced under clause 1. He cannot talk about any regulation that might exist on the statute book at present. The debate is on whether it would be right to apply new clause I to clause 1.

Mr. Paterson: I was about the mention the regulation. I should very much like to know whether new clause 1 would encompass the regulation, but I have not had time to say what it is.

Mr. Lansley: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Government have already referred to some of the purposes for which they wish to introduce regulatory reform orders. The Ministry of Apiculture, Fisheries and Food wishes to introduce a regulatory reform order to extend the powers of the Meat and Livestock Commission. It is perfectly possible, of course, for a regulatory reform order to be introduced that would not only extend those powers, but impact directly on the Meat Hygiene Service. As my hon. Friend will remember, we have already had experience of the Deregulation and Contracting out Act 1994, which the Bill will replace, being used to reduce some of the regulatory burdens on small abattoirs. So it is clear that the power could be used, if he were to construe it in that way, to reduce regulations in slaughterhouses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not debate the merits of matters that may or may not be subject to regulation in future. The hon. Gentleman must direct his argument to whether the House should agree new clause 1, in so far as it affects clause 1.

Mr. Paterson: I should just like to mention the regulation that I had in mind, because if new clause 1 could affect that regulation, it would be a thoroughly worthwhile addition to the Bill. It is especially pertinent that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire mentions the Meat Hygiene Service, because I want to mention the Restriction on Pithing


(England) Regulations 2000, which have been introduced in the past five days under Commission decision 2000/418/EC. This is a most interesting case and it is germane to our debate. The regulation was introduced with well-meaning intentions, but I shall not go into the process of pithing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will. I rule him out of order on that, because it is not within the scope of this debate.

Mr. Paterson: I have a final question for my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. Do regulations from European legislation come under the remit of the new clause?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend considered the difference between a European regulation and a directive? A regulation automatically becomes law when it is passed; a directive has to be incorporated into—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Paterson: I will not be tempted to discuss the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but the debate touches on the impact of regulations on many people trying to run small businesses. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are trying to set a clear remit for the debate, but I wish to end my remarks by asking my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire how regulations would be impacted on by the new clause. Directives are reinterpreted by this Parliament under clause 6(2), so it seems to me that they would be impacted on. That is very welcome. The IPPC, which I mentioned, would appear to come under the review, and my constituents would welcome that.
I am worried that the new clause does not cover regulation; that is the simple point that I wish to make. I would like clarification on that, but I endorse the spirit behind the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. Five years is probably too long a gap—we would like it to be less—but it is a very good start. Given the appalling burdens that the Government have inflicted on the entrepreneurial classes of this country, the new clause deserves our support because it would begin to try to reverse the ratchet.

Mr. Cash: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for as long as you may have wished, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have watched the debate with great interest from other parts of the precincts of the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to such a fact. The only debate that he can possibly know about is the one that takes place in the Chamber.

Mr. Cash: I was of course blind while I was watching it.
I have a real problem with new clause 1, even though I support its objective. I wish to deal with the procedural questions that lie at the heart of the provisions. As you,

Mr. Deputy Speaker, have often pointed out, the new clause covers orders made under clause 1. It states:
Every order made under section I shall include a provision"—
it has to refer to the fact that it includes such a provision—
for the Minister to present a report on the operation of the order in the fifth year after it has come into effect".
There is a simple but serious problem with that and it deserves close consideration: no order or statutory instrument of the House can revoke a provision made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The European directives and regulations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred cannot be repealed simply by an order of the House.
I mention that fact because I was on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for far too long. I proposed to the Speaker's Counsel and to the Committee some years ago that, when legislation was being introduced by statutory instrument—whether it was subject to annulment or approval—the letter "E" should be used to designate some of the instruments in the exceedingly long and ever-growing list of statutory instruments. My intention was to demonstrate to the Committee that, no matter what disposition it might make or what it might recommend to the House after discussing those statutory instruments, we cannot revoke or repeal, pass or not pass them because of the 1972 Act.

Mr. Bercow: I learned much at my hon. Friend's knee, so far be it from me to argue against him or query his superior knowledge. However, will he confirm that we cannot do what we want because new clause 1 would be incompatible with, and overridden by, the protocol on proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam, against which we were co-conspirators in January 1998?

Mr. Cash: Some overriding problems will prevail because the 1972 Act was passed in its present form. If it does not change, it will be impossible to breach the acquis communautaire. I shall go no further down that route, but my point is important. I am not trying to string out the debate.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but the case that he makes does not frustrate the purpose of new clause 1. It would allow for a review and possibly a disapplication of a regulatory reform order, which can be made only if secondary legislation allows for such a reform. To disapply such a reform order by using new clause 1 cannot infringe restrictions on the use of secondary legislation under the 1972 Act.

Mr. Cash: I do not want to get into a dispute with my hon. Friend, so perhaps we could discuss that later. It is a different story when the new clause applies to provisions that are not derived from European legislation. There is a tremendous advantage in having such a measure on the statute book in so far as it does not contradict the principle that I have just mentioned with respect to the 1972 Act.
I am worried about the five-year provision, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned. In an intervention on him, it was suggested that it would be better to hold a review every year, but there are difficulties with doing that too frequently. It is too generous simply to assume that we


can judge whether an order has outlived its usefulness or become obstructive to small or other businesses on the arbitrary basis of a five-year term. If orders are to be made under clause 1, it should be possible to make them at any time. It should not be necessary to refer to an arbitrary period of five years.

Mr. Paterson: I mentioned the Pollution Prevention Control Bill, of which Lord Peyton said in another place:
I do not believe that I have ever seen a Bill which shows more manifestly a deep and profound contempt for Parliament"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 471.]
On that basis, many laws need reviewing as soon as their impact on business is seen. I should have thought that five years was the longest that we would want to wait to do that, because many Bills will have an impact long before that.

Mr. Cash: That is why I should have preferred the new clause to say that the Minister should "present a report on the operation of the order within five years of its coming into effect", or something along those lines.
I take account of the fact that the object of the Bill, and clause 1 in particular, which is to try to knock sense into legislation, should be encouraged. I was the chairman of the Centre for Policy Studies reduction of legislation committee in the 1970s, so I have taken a significant interest in the subject. As I said earlier, I also introduced the Small Business Bill within four months of entering the House. That Bill specifically included as one of its objectives the reduction of legislation. I regret to say that very little was done for far too long. I am glad to note that the previous Government sought to tackle the problem. I have some sympathy with the Bill in that it seeks to achieve the objectives that many hon. Members share.
As I pointed out in a document that I wrote several years ago, there is a system that should be followed for reports such as those mentioned in new clause 1. The new clause says:
Every order made under section 1 shall include a provision for the Minister to present a report on the operation of the order in the fifth year".
The question is, how should that be done? I should like the House, and the Minister in particular, to consider that carefully.
I have always believed that there is a mechanism for achieving the objective of removing the burden of legislation. In preparing the report, the Minister responsible should ask the Law Commission to make a recommendation on the nature of the reforms that are needed. The Law Commission is an independent body, so it could be seen to be doing that objectively, and not in a purely internal, political manner. Once the report had been received, the Minister, having drawn together a team of specialist lawyers, could invite them to make the necessary reforms to the entire statute book.
That was done by no less an authority on the reduction of legislation than Justinian himself. In the second or third century AD, he was faced with a monumental volume of legislation that had built up in the Roman empire. He simply drew together all the lawyers he could lay his

hands on and instructed them to go through the statute book and reduce it. They did so most effectively within a couple of years. Reports such as those that would be required by new clause 1 should address the fact that there is today a vast amount of obsolete and unnecessary legislation. That can be effectively addressed only by an objective analysis such as the one that I have described.
Let me tell the House why. My following remarks are made without disrespect to the civil service. Ministers are Ministers of Departments; they get their advice from within those Departments. Every single piece of legislation creates a conflict of interest for the civil servants engaged in the repeal or reduction of that legislation, because legislation has to be administered by them. The bottom line is that an order would require those civil servants to be given the objective advice that I have described by the Law Commission, because they would otherwise have a disincentive to reduce legislation, which is, in effect, the source of their pay cheques. Therefore, new clause 1 is extremely important.
Leaving aside my point about European legislation—it is insuperable and will remain so until proposals of the sort that I have in mind, such as renegotiation on a proper scale, are implemented—there is an important question about, for example, the volume of public expenditure connected with the sort of report that a Minister would be expected to introduce. Legislation necessitates the employment of a number of departmental civil servants who are required to monitor it, which gives rise to public expenditure. One cannot overestimate the need for arrangements to reduce the volume of legislation by the means set out in the Bill. It is essential to reduce the volume of legislation and thereby to reduce administration and the number of administrators. There is a tremendous amount to be said in favour of the new clause.
Clause 1(2) refers to the "legislative competence" of the Scottish Parliament. There is a serious problem in that respect, but I do not need to spend much time on it. The relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom central Government throws up important questions relating to the sort of orders that can be made to achieve the objectives set out in clause 1 and, by implication, new clause 1. I remember debating this very subject with the late lamented former Secretary of State for Scotland during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. If a provision passed by the Scottish Parliament is ultra vires the arrangements under the Act, the Secretary of State can make an order; however, he cannot make an order that is itself ultra vires arrangements prescribed by the European Union—at whose table the UK sits in the Council of Ministers. Therefore, there is a serious problem with Scottish statutory instruments under new clause 1, just as there is within the new clause itself.
There are many reasons to be enthusiastic about any provision that reforms laws, but the most important is that it is effective. Such provisions must reduce the amount of legislation. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, farmers—all are crying out for a reduction in legislation. We are living in a madhouse of legislation; it is far too complicated. Now, even accountants are saying that legislation has got out of hand. Some years ago, I sat on the Committee dealing with the consolidation of the Income Taxes Acts. I felt that the most useful thing I could say was that it was pointless of the Committee to try to reduce the volume of legislation, as clause 1 and


new clause 1 would achieve, if within a matter of years of their reform, the Income Taxes Acts redoubled in number. That is exactly what happened.
The task is impossible unless people have the political will to undertake it. That political will involves a procedural arrangement within the arrangements prescribed under the report specified in new clause 1, which will permit people to know that the task will be achieved. It is one thing to say that we shall seek to achieve that task; it is another to do it.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I almost expected not to speak on the new clause. May I remind Members who did not have the benefit of serving on the Standing Committee that new clause 1, which we have been debating this afternoon, was discussed in Committee as new clause 4? The only difference between the wording of new clause 4 and new clause 1 is that "will" has been changed to "shall". The Committee discussion was satisfactory, we explored all the issues and Opposition Members decided not to press their new clause to a vote. I am surprised that we have had such a long debate this afternoon when few, if any, new points have been made.
I should like to repeat the commitment that my noble Friend Lord Falconer gave on Second Reading in the other place on behalf of the Government. Because the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) asked for it, I shall repeat the Government's commitment to review the workings and constitutional implications of the Bill in three years' time. New clause 1 asks for a review in five years' time, which would be based on clause 6 and would allow either the House or the other place to annul unsatisfactory regulatory reform orders.
As we discussed in Committee, the Government contend that the structures that we have in place for reviewing regulations are a more effective procedure than waiting five years to review a regulatory reform order. It is possible for the Government, or any other Government, to get a regulatory reform order or my other piece of legislation wrong. If a regulatory reform order does not have the effects and impacts envisaged in debate, it should be reviewed as soon as possible. To do that, every Department has appointed a regulatory reform Minister whose responsibility is to keep current legislation and regulations under review and look at forward regulations to make sure that they are created in the best possible way and that their burdensome effects are minimised.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office chairs the ministerial panel for regulatory accountability, which has the facility to invite Ministers from any Department to account for their current regulatory performance and ask them what they will do in future. If any regulatory reform order is operating as envisaged, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the members of the panel can summon Ministers from other Departments to discuss it. As well as those processes, there is the independent—

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am afraid that he is very insouciant about the matter. In relation to the performance of individual Departments, he says that his right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office can go and see the

Minister concerned and remonstrate with him or her. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that we are arguing for something much more exacting and rigorous? That is why we have spent the best part of three and a half hours arguing for new clause 1.

Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. The panel has the right to call people before it. It is the new clause that is cool and calm about regulation that goes wrong. If regulation goes wrong, why should the Government and Parliament wait for five years? Something should be done about it sooner. That is one of the reasons why I ask the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) to withdraw the motion or the House to reject it.
The better regulation taskforce, which is independent, also reviews regulation. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, with regard to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, that huge costs had been postulated by business, whereas the Government argued that the costs would be considerably less. If the Government were wrong, their response to the report of the better regulation taskforce—that they would keep the workings and the impact of that Act under review—was a better response than waiting for five years. If the Government had got it wrong, it would be better to have a continual review, which was the Government's stated policy in response to the better regulation taskforce's report on e-commerce.

Mr. Cash: If the Minister cannot immediately answer my question, which I ask in all seriousness, will he write to me? Can he explain, with reference to new clause 1 and more specifically to clause 1, how it is possible to change laws if they are derived from European Union regulations or directives? There is nothing in the Bill which states that it shall not apply to provisions that derive from those sources. Is it to be assumed, therefore, that such provisions cannot and will not be changed, because of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972?

Mr. Stringer: My understanding is that if European legislation is transposed into British legislation by primary legislation, and that legislation is a regulatory framework, the regulatory reform order process can amend the primary legislation. That is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Paterson: Not surprisingly, the Minister is defending his Government's mechanism for reviewing legislation and regulation. Can he tell us how many measures have been reviewed, and how many have been repealed or reduced as a result of those reviews?

Mr. Stringer: If the hon. Gentleman looks through the DTI programme, the recommendations of the better regulation taskforce and the number of deregulation orders, he will understand that a great deal of work has been done. I cannot quantify it, without notice of the question. So much work has been done in this regard that it would be a costly exercise to quantify it.
I come to the second point, which is very different and much more dangerous than the first.
One can understand Opposition Members arguing for a review after five years, but it is much more difficult to understand the proposal to allow this House or the other


place to remove any regulatory reform order. I think that it derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of what such an order is. It can put previous Acts of Parliament in one place, simplify them and rebalance regulatory regimes, but it might refer to previous primary legislation. Disapplying the order before deciding what to do—I think that those were the words that were used by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—could leave a huge hole in any regulatory regime. He gave the example of fire regulations. The removal of such regulation could leave everybody in the country without its protection.

Mr. Lansley: For the avoidance of doubt, I should tell the Parliamentary Secretary that in terms of fire regulation, the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that a review occurs if it has not happened under any other mechanism within five years. Of course, it is open to the Government to introduce a new regulatory reform order instead of simply disapplying orders, but the power to disapply the order might be the best way of achieving a deregulatory effect.

Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I admit that fire regulations are an extreme example, but the essential point remains: a hole could be left in regulations. It would be within the power of this House and of the other place to leave such a hole. That is the second fundamental reason why I hope that he will ask leave to withdraw the motion. The new clause would give the other place power to remove chunks of primary legislation without the agreement of this House. That must be a brand-new position for Opposition Members, who seem to be saying that the other place should be able to do things that this House might not want. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understood what he was doing when he included the phrase "either House of Parliament" in the new clause, as it would allow either House to make an order. If he did understand it, that is an extraordinary position for Opposition Members, as the provision would give some legislative primacy to the other place.
I shall not follow Opposition Members all the way around Europe, the world and several dictionaries, which is where they went in their speeches. I do not think that the case has been made for the new clause. I am not sure whether many of the hon. Members who spoke understood the provision that they supported or were aware that it would pass power down the Corridor. I request that the hon. Gentleman seeks leave to withdraw the motion. If he will not do so, I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Lansley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the time, and although I do not accept the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments, I want to move to the next group of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

LIMITATIONS ON ORDER-MAKING POWER

Mr. Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 9, leave out "(a)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 3, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert—
'is also of the opinion—

(a) that the burdens created or imposed as a result of the provisions of the order are less onerous than those reduced or removed; or
(b) that other beneficial effects for persons affected by the provisions of the order, not including those effects which only relate to Ministers of the Crown, government departments or statutory bodies, make it desirable for the order to be made.'.

Mr. Lansley: After the hors d'oeuvres, we come to the main course, although we will have to eat very fast.
I think that I can state the amendment's purpose pretty straightforwardly. On Second Reading, we tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill as a whole on the grounds that it sought to use an exceptional power not for the original purpose for which it was created, which was a deregulatory one. We lost the Division on that amendment.
In Committee, we tried to ensure that, in imposing limitations on the order-making power, the Bill would not only have the deregulatory purpose for which amendments in another place provided, but that the burdens that were removed exceeded those that were created or imposed That was resisted.
There may be a technical, drafting problem with the amendment, but I hope not. I emphasise that we are searching for a compromise. We understand that the Government intend to establish a power not only to reimpose burdens in existing legislation when reforming a regulatory system, but to create new burdens. The Government should be required under the Bill to consider additional or recreated burdens and determine whether they are more or less onerous than the provisions that are to be reduced or removed.
Such a requirement is similar to the provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which was tighter than the Bill, but provided that Ministers could create burdens that related to the subject matter of, but were less onerous than that imposed by, the existing provision. Existing legislation therefore already provides for weighing up burdens.
If Ministers want to proceed down the path of imposing burdens that are more onerous than those that are reduced or removed, they should he required to express that in the Bill. If the burdens are more onerous, they should balance that against the benefits that will accrue. However, they should not be public sector benefits.
We want to reach a compromise. If Ministers intend to have the power to impose new burdens, let them do that, but not through reference to benefits that would accrue to the public sector, Ministers, Departments and statutory bodies. If Ministers can demonstrate that benefits to the private sector will outweigh the additional burdens that they want to impose, they should quantify them.
I will stop speaking simply to give the Minister an opportunity to reply. However, the amendment constitutes a genuine effort to move from our earlier position to one that might be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Stringer: I shall to be brief. There was an attempt in Committee to turn the Bill into another deregulation


measure. I hoped that I had convinced Conservative Members that the purpose of the Bill was to re-balance regulatory regimes and that even if the powers in the 1994 Act had been brought up to date, they would not have enabled a Minister to take action to improve a regulatory regime. I gave an example in Committee that is worth reiterating. If a Minister wants to re move many small burdens from shops and place larger burdens on supermarkets, it is difficult to ascertain the way in which to weigh that up and calculate the benefits and disbenefits. Yet common sense shows that there is a reason for that.
In trying to reintroduce paragraph (a), the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has reopened the debate. There is a conflict between the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the amendment. That is confusing. Proposed new paragraph (a) would turn the Bill into a deregulatory measure. Yet proposed new paragraph (b) states:
that other beneficial effects for persons affected by the provisions of the order, not including those effects which only relate to Ministers of the Crown, government departments or statutory bodies, make it desirable for the order to be made.
That replaces tighter tests for which clauses 1 and 3 provide. We spent a great deal of time discussing those proportionate tests—
It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [19 March], put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
Amendment negatived.
Order for Third Reading read.

6 pm

Mr. Stringer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am pleased that the Bill is proceeding through its final parliamentary stages. It is more than two years since we first consulted on it and almost exactly a year since it was published in draft. As a result of prolonged gestation, the Bill received a thorough, almost unprecedented amount of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government listened to anxieties and accepted several amendments in another place. Those amendments ensure that all orders must be based on a deregulatory measure.
The Bill has undergone further scrutiny in this House. I am pleased that Committee stage was marked by a consensual and constructive approach by all parties. Although no further amendments were made to the Bill, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will agree that our debates in Committee made the Government's position clear on a number of issues where some hon. Members still had doubts. Indeed, a draft form was produced for the consultation that the Department should go through when it is consulting on a regulatory reform order. Some of the structure of that is thanks to Conservative Members. We had a constructive debate in Committee.

Mr. Cash: I shall pursue a point that I made at an earlier stage about the compatibility of obligations resulting from membership of the European Union, and the directives and regulations that derive from that and section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. I have been reading again the explanatory notes to the Bill, and I bear in mind the Minister's reply. I think I saw movement upwards and downwards—nodding—from the Front Bench when the Minister replied. There is an important question that needs to be resolved.
On the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, on page 56 the explanatory notes clearly state:
Subject to the terms of any Standing Order under which they were appointed, any such Committee might well consider in each case whether proposals … appeared to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union.
I want clarification in writing of whether any order made under the Bill could be made if it were incompatible with an obligation derived from a directive, a regulation or other legislative enactment of the European Union.

Mr. Stringer: I think that the courts are considering that very point. It is not quite the question that the hon. Gentleman asked before. However, I am happy to write to him on that issue.
Having had such a serious and detailed consensual debate in Committee, I was disappointed—perhaps I should not have been—by the debate on Report. We did not discuss areas of consultation or the amount of deregulatory action that should be within the Bill, if indeed there is a difference between the Front Benches on that issue. We did not discuss whether the wording should be simpler or clarified within regulatory reform orders. These matters were not discussed. In many instances we had what were, in effect, Second Reading speeches. That is disappointing. As many hon. Members have said, there is an interest on the part of business, as well as of Members of this House and the other place, in getting regulation right, and in making it as unburdensome on business as we can. That requires a detailed and thoughtful understanding of the regulatory process. It does not require simple, ideological statements that are grounded not in objective evidence but in prejudice.
I can only think that a lack of political confidence, and a lack of confidence in their own intellectual analysis of how regulations impact on business, led to the Opposition's being unprepared to debate the details, despite all the time available this afternoon. If they had debated them, they might not have had to repeat clichés such as the one about this country being the most heavily regulated and becoming even more so. Almost every independent study, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study published in December 1999, showed that that was not so. That study showed that, in terms of product market regulation and the barriers of trade, ours was the least regulated of the OECD countries.
A number of Conservative Members made the standard prejudiced point that we were the only member of the European Union that played by the rules. In fact, if we compare this country's performance on the speed with which legislation is transposed with that of other countries, we are mid-table. We are also mid-table in terms of the number of infraction proceedings against this country; we are neither the best nor the worst. The better regulation taskforce's study comparing the hotel industries in France and the United Kingdom concluded that the hotel industry in France was slightly more heavily regulated than ours.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has been mentioned a number of times—fondly, I think, by Conservative Members—for the work that he did on deregulation and better regulation. In 1994, he set up a taskforce to consider how we, compared with other European countries, had transposed some European


legislation. His report was very long, but it found very little evidence to support the contention advanced by Conservative Members. I am confident that the Bill will become a valuable tool for implementing important reforms. It will also help Ministers to act in those situations in which regulation is being applied in too heavy-handed a fashion. Again, that is not a party political point, but something that all sides welcome.

Mr. Paterson: The Minister sounds immensely complacent to me. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates, in its burdens barometer, that £9.62 billion has been imposed on business in the form of burdens, yet the Minister has just dismissed that. That is a very significant sum of money, and it bears down disproportionately on small businesses.

Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman must not mistake my nearly being sent to sleep by some Conservative Members' speeches—which were rather off the point—for complacency. If we were complacent, we would not be introducing this Regulatory Reform Bill. We have introduced it because we know that there is a problem, and that the Government can improve their performance on regulations. Indeed, any Government can do so.
We are aware that all regulations that apply to small, medium and large businesses impact disproportionately on the small businesses. It is an arithmetical fact that they do so. That is why we have taken measures either to exempt small businesses or, as the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement, to give special support to them. I remind the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that since this Government came to office, there has been a net increase in small businesses of 150,000 or thereabouts. Those businesses are being created faster and are lasting longer than under the previous Government. Those 150,000 small businesses have contributed to the 1 million jobs that have been created over the past four years.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister seeks to assure us that he is not complacent. I do not doubt for a moment that he will acknowledge the superiority of the record of the United States relative not only to Britain but to all the member states of the European Union in job creation and retention these past 30 years. In that context, and in preparation for the Regulatory Reform Bill, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what assessment he has made of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States?

Mr. Stringer: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in comparative studies between the regulatory burden in this country and in the United States, when state and federal regulations are added together, this country comes out very favourably. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the OECD study that I mentioned earlier.
The Bill is an excellent tool in itself and an exemplar of scrutiny both before it reached Parliament and when it was before this House and another place. I look forward to its wide and frequent use in improving this country's regulatory regime and achieving a legislative framework to suit the modern world.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister on Third Reading. Even though he chided Conservative Members for making what he described as Second Reading speeches on new clause 1, I felt that the Minister wanted to revisit the Second Reading debate himself. However, we have had that debate. I am pleased to echo the Minister's view that there was a constructive attitude to the Committee proceedings throughout, although we secured no changes to the Bill in Committee, nor was it ever likely that we would secure any changes on Report. It was right for my colleagues to use their time to express their sense of concern about the pace and increases in regulation. It was perhaps their best opportunity to express their concern rather than to play the Government's game that it is now simply a matter of debating the legislation's technicalities and procedures.
The Government will no doubt have their Bill. We objected to it on the ground that it did not have a solely deregulatory purpose. None the less, I hope that it will be only a short time before we have the responsibility of using it. We have agreed that the legislation is not without merit. It is true that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 did not necessarily give sufficient scope for reforming a scheme of regulation rather than regulations that related to one subject alone. It was certainly a limitation, even on a deregulatory purpose, for the 1994 Act to confine deregulation and contracting out orders to legislation passed prior to the point at which the Act came into force. So there is merit in the Bill for that reason.
We will be able to use this legislation for a positive deregulatory purpose. I freely admit that I do not exclude the possibility of occasionally changing a scheme of regulation in ways that impose burdens at the same time as reducing them elsewhere, thus rebalancing them. It is not inconceivable that from time to time one has to restructure legislation to impose burdens.
I remind the House that our objection to the Bill was that it did not seem to us right to use the exceptional, supra-affirmative procedure. That procedure was created by the previous Conservative Government, and opposed by the then Labour Opposition. It was designed for the very specific purpose of reducing the extent to which the Executive place burdens on private citizens. However, the Bill applies the supra-affirmative procedure to many purposes other than deregulation. Whatever the Minister may say, and regardless of the nature of amendments to be tabled in another place, the deregulatory purpose may be no more than a fig leaf to cover the Government's regulatory intent.
I do not want to intrude a harsh partisan point, but we believe—from our experience and from the experience of those dealing with business—that regulation has increased under this Government. A number of business organisations' representatives consider that increase to be excessive and believe it should it be rolled back.
I turn once more to Sir Martin Jacomb, who wrote in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week:
Early last month, the Prime Minister invited a group of business people to breakfast at Chequers; they told him how regulation and tax bureaucracy were stifling enterprise, which apparently came as news to him. It surprised no one else.
That is the essence we know what the Government and the Minister clearly do not—that the business sector is finding that the increasing burden of regulation inevitably stifles enterprise. The Government have not established an underlying system to try to reduce that burden.
It will be a Conservative responsibility to reduce the burden of regulation. The Bill is not enough. It should be used only by a Government in the context of a system for reducing regulation generally. We debated review clauses in the context of new clause 1, but such a mechanism should be only one element of an intention to introduce sunset clauses on all future regulations and legislation that have the effect of increasing burdens.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman said what the Bill should be used for. Does that mean that the Conservative party will not honour its commitment when the new Regulatory Reform Committee looks at the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979? The Government have promised that changes to that legislation will be made at one of the Committee's first meetings.

Mr. Lansley: I am surprised at that question, as the hon. Gentleman was an assiduous member of the Standing Committee. In our deliberations, I offered the reform of the 1979 Act as an example of something that we did not oppose. I said that we supported it. However, he will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has told the House that the Opposition believe that that proposal for reform of legislation should have been included in the Queen's Speech, and achieved by primary legislation.
It is not for me or the Minister to anticipate the contents of a Queen's Speech. An extension of the vaccine damage payments scheme might be achieved by means of a regulatory reform order or primary legislation. However, the House should not be under the misapprehension that we would not want to extend the scheme.
Regulatory reform orders should be used in the context of a deregulatory initiative across the board. Sunset clauses have a part to play, as does the reform of institutions established by the Government such as the panel for regulatory accountability, the better regulation taskforce, the regulatory impact unit, and so on. They are all very well, but do not deliver the objective sought by business.
Essentially, two things are needed. The first is a stronger agency—a deregulation commission with the power to block additional burdens imposed by legislation and to examine them under a special procedure before they are proceeded with. In that way, business could have a voice with influence in Government to limit legislation.
We also need an audit of the burden that regulation imposes on businesses. We need to establish a baseline in order to create regulatory budgets which will have the progressive effect of reducing the overall burden on business. Unless we do that, precisely the opposite tendency will apply. There is a tendency for Governments to increase the burden of regulation systematically over time, as is happening under the present Government. That is inevitable, not only because they do not have a system to reduce regulation, but because it is often their intention.
Each year, the Institute of Chartered Accountants carries out a survey of its business advisers, looking at the cost to businesses of complying with the legislation that came into effect in the preceding year. That is not the total cost of complying with legislation, but a measure of the in-year change in the burden of new legislation. In 1999 it estimated that the cost to micro-businesses, or businesses with up to five employees, was £1,700. It rose

to £3,600 in the year to July 2000. For small businesses, which for this purpose were defined as businesses with up to 50 employees, the figure was £4,700 in 1999 and £8,000 in the year to July 2000. That illustrates that it is not simply that there is an excessive burden of legislation and regulation, but that the rate at which it is being imposed is still increasing and needs to be reversed.

Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in theory the new committee to be established by the Bill could conduct an inquiry into the way in which the Act was being used, and in a year's time, for example, could publish a report raising some of those points? Given the additional debates on Select Committee reports in Westminster Hall, the issue could be debated if the opportunities that the Government are anxious should be used are not seized as a result of the new Act.

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I was going to touch on later—that it is important for the legislation to be reviewed. In response to an earlier debate, the Minister made it clear that it remains the Government's intention to conduct such a review and to report some three years hence in relation to the procedures, the order-making process and the constitutional and other procedural issues, but not in relation to the policy as the Government regard that as having been settled.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made the very fair point that the Regulatory Reform Committee, if it is to be so styled, could indeed undertake such a review. My hon. Friends and I would welcome that because, at the risk of repeating myself, we all tend towards legislation and regulations where, to put it in military parlance, we fire and forget. We need to see where the bullets hit and what damage they do. If they have the intended benefit or better, that is all well and good, and I am sure that the policy that lay behind any particular regulatory reform order will be seen to have been vindicated.
Without debating with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) the estimates of what the compliance and other impacts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 will be, it is also legitimate for people to take distinct and differing views of the impact of legislation that is passed through the House, so it is vital that we do not treat the policy as given and then move on. In that respect I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers might revise their intention and make it clear that they will participate and help the new committee and the House to look not only at the policy, but at the effectiveness of the regulatory reform orders that are introduced, at their compliance with the structure of the document set out in clause 6, and at whether the orders have the effects that were intended.
On that point, I thank the Minister for writing to me, to the hon. Member for Burnley and to the Chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in another place about the process of preliminary consultation. It will be much to the advantage of the Regulatory Reform Committee, the House and consultees if they are given direction as to the issues that will have to be addressed in the document specified in clause 6.
Notwithstanding the Minister's positive response, it is not the purpose of the preliminary consultation to apply the tests proposed in one or two of the regulatory reform


order consultation papers. I do not dispute the importance of the fair balance and desirability tests under clause 3, but they are for Ministers and the House to apply—on advice from the Regulatory Reform Committee. The Minister noted that preliminary consultation should not attempt to make judgments or to reach conclusions before information has been acquired. It thus seems premature to make judgments as to desirability or fair balance before a document is laid before the House. Those matters do not belong in the preliminary consultation process.
Other matters, however, should be covered: the burdens that are to be affected; the reduction or removal of burdens; the imposition of burdens; whether necessary protection is removed; whether reasonable expectations are to be frustrated; and the savings and increases in costs. Indeed, if the Minister wants to take this path—although the measure does not require it—the question of specific impacts on particular persons or groups could be addressed. The Minister referred to the importance of considering the disproportionate impacts that sometimes affect small businesses. He rightly said that we should always consider the exemption of small businesses from legislation that may have disproportionate effects on them owing to their lack of internal resources for dealing with it. If the document and the preliminary consultation provided for under clause 6 could identify such impacts, it would be useful.
During Report stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to risk assessment. In one of the consultation documents, the Home Office, too, expressed the issue in terms of risk assessment. It is important to do so; I have no criticism of that. Often, in the pursuit of spurious accuracy in compliance cost assessments, there is a tendency to fix a figure and ignore things that are more difficult to quantify or that are the subject of variable assumptions. At certain points in the consultation document, it is important to include risk assessment so as to assess the assumptions—to work out how sensitive the compliance costs are to the factors in the proposal and to the assumptions made as to how those factors will apply.
I do not want to delay the House, as colleagues may want to speak. If we have the opportunity to use the legislation, we shall set it firmly in the context that I have described. Although the Minister did not accept our amendments, I hope that the Government will stand by not only the undertakings that they have already given—not to introduce large or controversial measures; not to proceed with a regulatory reform—

Mr. Stringer: We have given a commitment not to introduce large and controversial measures—that is an important point.

Mr. Lansley: I beg the Minister's pardon; he is right. Fire safety legislation is large by anybody's measure—it remains to be seen whether it is controversial.
The Government have undertaken not to introduce large and controversial measures; not to proceed with a regulatory reform order in the light of an adverse view from the Deregulation Committee, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee or the Regulatory Reform Committee; and—in the light of our discussions—to proceed through preliminary consultation in a form that is much more geared to the House's scrutiny requirements.
I hope that, even if Ministers will not necessarily give undertakings to that effect, they will none the less continually respond when the legislation is in use, whether it is a Labour or a Conservative Administration that have occasion to do so. I hope that they will simplify legislation and make it more comprehensible. We discussed such an amendment in Committee and sought to do so again on Report, but did not have an opportunity.
I hope that Ministers will ensure that there is the sort of review process that we discussed and that codes of practice, which we have not discussed to any great extent during the passage of the Bill are in line with the enforcement concordat and with the further recommendations of the better regulation taskforce as time goes by.
I also hope that Ministers will use the powers only in the spirit in which they are intended and always with a substantive deregulatory effect. I hope that they will examine critically the use of the powers if they have benefited the public sector or significantly increased burdens, notwithstanding judgments they may make about desirability.
A strong deregulatory purpose should lie behind the regulatory reform orders that are made. I hope that the legislation will be used for the purpose for which the whole procedure was first created back in 1994.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I appreciate that it is tempting fate to say that I shall be brief, since every speech this afternoon has started with that preface but lasted half an hour. However, I will be brief, partly because much of the work on the Bill was done by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), who also sits on the Deregulation Committee. I shall simply summarise our broad approach to the Bill.
From the outset, we have supported the principle of the Bill and we regard it as useful legislation, but we have been somewhat concerned about the constitutional implications. We have attempted to deal with those concerns through amendments, some of which were successful in the other place and some of which were not.
In general, we are probably a little obsessed with the quantity of regulation. Quantity is important—tax complexity, for example, is important in itself—but the real issue is how to get a mechanism for distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary and good and bad regulations. That is the crucial issue with which this reform must deal.
The Minister gave the reasons for the Bill and I do not need to repeat them in detail. Essentially, the 1994 legislation was insufficient in its scope. This legislation will enable batches of related regulations to take effect. Several references have been made to the fire safety regulations—an interesting test case. I am particularly interested in those as I have been involved in the work of the all-party fire safety group and I know about the impatience of fire officers for regulatory reform and an overhaul as quickly as possible.
The second positive point is that, as far as I can gauge, most business federations—the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the chambers of commerce—despite having some reservations about the Bill, regard it as a welcome signal that is worth supporting.
Some of my hon. Friends' earlier concerns have been met, in particular, through clause 1(3), which was introduced by Lord Goodhart in the other place and built in a commitment that any change should be deregulatory in its effect and therefore help to tackle some of the concerns that have been expressed at considerable length this afternoon that the legislation could be used for re-regulation rather than deregulation
There are several constitutional concerns. One is the big constitutional issue of the potential for the Bill to be abused. The Minister has just dealt with that with his commitment not to introduce large and controversial measures under the provisos of the legislation. We hope that that commitment will be observed.
We were concerned that there is, perhaps, an undue reliance on ministerial subjectivity in the tests and we hope that the new committee, when it is established—we were not successful in agreeing amendments to deal with this—will apply its own objective test to Ministers' subjective estimates of benefit.
The reporting process is the other important issue that has been referred to at some length this afternoon. The Conservatives are pushing the five-year review, the Minister has his three-year review and in Committee we argued for a one-year review. We hope, in particular on the basis of the intervention of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), that the new committee will take up the spirit of those attempted amendments and report annually to ensure that the Bill achieves its objectives.
My final point is that an awful lot depends not on the letter of the legislation, but on its spirit. We will look for two things to ensure that the Government are committed to the spirit of deregulation, the first c f which is how they approach regulatory impact assessments. In commenting on new clause 1, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), made some useful remarks about how they are abused or not taken sufficiently seriously.
I hope that the Cabinet Office, perhaps with the Government economic service, will produce a paper explaining the methodology of regulatory impact assessment and how it can work consistently, so that it becomes not an empty ritual, but a serious measure not only of the compliance costs of regulation but of its overall economic impact, positive and negative.
The other element of the spirit of the Bill is consultation. Many, of the problems with the working time directive, for example, simply arose because Whitehall officials and Ministers did not take sufficient time to talk to business, or even the trade unions, about the way in which the complicated regulations would come into effect. A combination of proper consultation and a rigorous, consistent measure of impact assessment would do much for the spirit of the Bill on top of the formal legislative changes.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I should like briefly to deal with the Minister's earlier comments, which were complacent. He made all the right noises, but he and the Government do not understand the crushing burden of the relentless juggernaut of regulation being imposed on business every day. He did not reply to my intervention.
The British Chambers of Commerce has estimated the cost to be £9.62 billion—a huge sum. That has a devastating impact, especially on smaller businesses. Last December, the president of the CBI—the representative of large businesses—said:
simplification of existing laws is very welcome, but it will not ease concern about the relentless build up of new regulations".
The Minister underestimates how much legislation exists and how difficult it is for smaller businesses to cope with it.
I should like to touch briefly on one new law that will have a most dramatic impact on a sector that is very much in the public mind at the moment. As was said on Report, there is concern in the agricultural sector about the future of small abattoirs. There is not time to mention the impact on the Meat Hygiene Service. What is most interesting in the example that I shall cite is that, through the Food Standards Agency, the Meat Hygiene Service highlighted the dangers of the Restriction on Pithing (England) Regulations 2000, which I mentioned on Report.
Currently, 254 abattoirs—about two thirds of those that still survive the current crushing burden of regulation—use the pithing process. In brief, it involves the insertion of a rod into the brain of a stunned animal to break down its nervous system to stop it kicking. A bullock can cause severe damage in an abattoir—its death throes can maim and kill people. It is a most important process in small abattoirs and it is vital for craft abattoirs. The whole organic meat industry is most concerned that small abattoirs should continue to be locally based near to the sources of livestock to keep production, processing and markets close together. There is a consensus in the countryside that it is a good idea to keep small abattoirs going.
Last year, the president of the Small Abattoir Federation predicted that small butchers will have nowhere to buy their meat and
it will be a huge social, economic and animal welfare disaster
if that measure were passed. The federation was told in October that it was likely to come into effect on 1 January, and there were protests in the industry. On 22 February this year, the federation was sent a letter, informing it that the measure would not be applied until 1 April.
The measure was introduced under the negative procedure, laid before Parliament on 20 February and it became law on 1 April. I have talked to the Under?Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who has been most sympathetic and understanding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are wide of the mark. He must talk about the Bill's contents.

Mr. Paterson: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was citing a specific example, because I would like the Minister to tell me whether such a measure could be improved when the Bill becomes law.
A piece of legislation was introduced and the Under-Secretary of State for Health took a real interest in the problem that it created. She took the trouble to go to an abattoir, saw the problem and agreed with the assessment of the Food Standards Agency—the Meat Hygiene Service is often rebuked for over-regulation—that the jobs


of workers in abattoirs could be put at risk and that insurance costs might rise so dramatically that abattoirs could be closed. Unless substantial investment was made, many would not be able to carry on.
The Under-Secretary kindly said that I could bring a delegation to see her but, because of the foot and mouth crisis, sadly no one was free. Despite her sympathy and interest, this small measure, which is hardly known to the rest of the world, became law. However, it will put at risk many craft abattoirs, so will the Minister answer a simple question? Will the Bill improve the chances of minimising the impact of such regulations and will it preserve the small businesses that suffer so much from them?

Mr. Richard Page: It is a matter of regret that, because the debate on new clause 1 went on for so long, my devastating attack on aspects of the Bill that would have been illustrated by my speech on amendment No. 4 was not reached.
Conservative Members welcome anything that will reduce the burdens on business. The Government might be the master of spin, but the substance is starting to wear thin, so we remain to be convinced that the Labour leopard has changed its spots.
When we were in government, the Labour party told us that it would cut red tape and that the better regulation taskforce would deal with all these matters. However, the number of regulations has soared and Lord Haskins is on record as saying that the taskforce has not worked. Reality sits ill with what the Minister said. I leave it to the House to decide whether he or the British Chambers of Commerce is correct when we consider the impact of Government policies on small businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has illustrated the extreme costs that have hit small businesses over the past four years. A mere handful of regulations have been altered under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, but it surely would have been possible for the Government to make the system operate more effectively. They have done nothing, so after four years—and 30 days or so before a general election—they introduce the Bill saying, "We will deregulate; we will save small businesses", but we must ask, "Will they? Will they keep to their word?"
I admit that the Government are saying all the right things about deregulation and the explanatory notes describe the 50 or so areas that can be tackled by being simplified. However, the House and the country should not forget that the Bill is only half the equation. The other half is the sausage machine that turns out regulation after regulation. There is nothing that will stop a vast number of regulations appearing.
I caution everyone against getting too enthusiastic about the Bill. It is larded with phrases that suggest that the Minister's hand is firmly on the deregulation tap, but we must see whether he ensures that the tap operates at full bore or is reluctant to let it rip. The Bill is larded with phrases such as "if it appears to the Minister", "if the Minister considers it appropriate" and "as it appears to him". It is very much in the Minister's hands to control the effectiveness of the Bill.
We should worry about what the Committee was not allowed to change. In particular, I am concerned about the Government's reasons for rejecting our amendments. We asked to reduce the impact of the ministerial hand and to put more power into the two deregulation Committees, but that was refused. We were told that the Minister should have control. In today's long debate on new clause 1, we asked for a five-year review, but he came up with reasons why that would not be a good idea. The truth is that had new clause 1 been successful, it would have given the Committees the power to consider the regulations in sequence every five years, subject them to the provisions of clause 6 and, if necessary, tell the Minister that they should be changed. That would have put the Minister under pressure to deal with them—but no, he wanted to keep the power and control in his hands.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire moved amendment No. 3, which was grouped with amendment No. 2. They were designed to reduce the way in which the Government can use the Bill to add to burdens on business. Again, our request was refused. The Committee desperately tried to make life easier for the small business man and woman. We wanted the Government to accept an amendment to ensure the use of plain English in regulations. Indeed, the Minister for the Cabinet Office twice assured the House about that on Second Reading. She said:
We—
the Government—
have taken active steps to ensure that what regulations are introduced are necessary, simple, and easy to understand and implement.
She went on to tell us that she chairs
a panel on regulatory accountability whose key task is to scrutinise Departments' regulatory proposals and ensure that they meet that high standard. I call Ministers to come to the panel and justify their proposals if the panel thinks that they do not meet its criteria."—[Official Report, 19 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 23.]
We wanted to help and support her in that task, hence the amendment. The Bill must fall within those parameters. It has 15 clauses and is 11 pages long, but it has taken the regulatory impact unit of the Cabinet Office—the guardian, according to the Minister, of the interests of small business—58 pages and, I estimate, just over 30,000 words to explain its purpose.
I shall resist illustrating my case by working out how many words there are in the Lord's prayer, the creed and the declaration of American independence and ending up with the number of words in the regulatory requirements for the import of caramel, which run to tens of thousands. The fact is that small businesses are visited by inspectors who are experts in their subject. They know everything and expect the small business man to be an expert. That is not fair or right because regulations can be extremely complex.
However, we said "Amen" to the right hon. Lady's words because we thought how right she was, but, despite her assurances, in Committee we ran into a brick wall in the shape of the Parliamentary Secretary. When we argued for plain speaking, he said:
it is important that the law is precise, even if it is not in plain English.
He went on to claim:
When people's freedoms, liberty and costs are involved, it is better to be precise than to insist on the objective of plain English, which is a subjective opinion".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 March 2001; c. 31–32.]


I do not accept that we cannot phrase our regulations in plain English. They do not have to be open to a subjective interpretation or contain a series of words that might be misinterpreted or read a different way by the courts. Our businesses require regulations to be short, sharp and clearly understood. If there were more time, I would have liked to bring to the House a pile of incomprehensible regulations that would take hours to read, with no one being any wiser after having done so because they are incredibly complicated. However, time is not on our side.
I shall draw my brief remarks to a close by repeating that the Opposition welcome the Bill, as we welcome anything that will reduce the burdens on business. We recognise that business is the growth engine of our economy, and we want to see it go from strength to strength. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and I look forward to the Minister implementing the Bill quickly during the few days that he has left in his position. He can rest assured that when we are in power, I shall look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire busily making sure that the Bill is effective, and if he does not work hard at it, I will chase him just as I will chase the Minister.

Mr. Stringer: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to three points. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has made the same objective analysis of the Conservative party's prospects in the general election as he has of certain provisions in the Bill. I am afraid that despite spending many hours in Committee, he has not understood the importance of the consultation process and the consensual approach of the Deregulation Committee and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the power in the Minister's hands, but the real importance of the supra-affirmative process lies in the fact that the Minister has

his or her judgment checked by one of the Committees. If there is no consensus in the Committee, the proposal will return to the Minister. During the seven years in which the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 has been operating, consensus has always been achieved on the Committee's final decision. Achieving that consensus is much more important than all the safeguards about being proportionate, not removing necessary protection and upholding the freedoms that one could normally expect to enjoy. Those safeguards are important, but in the past the Committees have operated as a significant safeguard, and I expect that they will do so in future. The hon. Gentleman misunderstood that point and underestimated the power of the Committees in the process.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) asked about pithing. The answer is that it depends entirely on the origin of the regulations. The powers in the Bill are directed at primary legislation, so if the regulations on pithing did not originate in primary legislation, which I understand they did not, the Bill will not apply to them.
I finish on a theme that has run through the debates here and in the other place. There is consensus in the House about the fact that no one wants to place unnecessary regulatory burdens on business, but to have a serious debate about the cost of regulations, it is necessary to define the word "burden". It is not helpful when Opposition Members or organisations representing business mix in with regulatory costs the costs of policy implementation. For example, the cost of implementing the minimum wage—of increasing wages—is not a regulatory cost, and there are almost no such costs associated with the minimum wage. The Government make no apology for improving the conditions of working people in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Prisoners of War (Germany)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Dr. Vincent Cable: It is a privilege to introduce this Adjournment debate on a subject that is very different from the one that we have just discussed.
I should start by apologising to the Minister: I have written to him and I know that the normal courtesy would be to wait to receive his reply before proceeding to an Adjournment debate, but we are close to the end of a parliamentary Session and I wanted the issues to be aired in time, especially as time is not on the side of the people on whom the debate focuses.
I raise the subject primarily on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Harding, but the arguments that he would make are extremely similar to the more general arguments advanced by the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association. I have discussed his experiences with Mr. Harding, who is now 83 years old. He served in the early stages of the war and fought in the battle of Calais defending the retreat from Dunkirk in the last-ditch defence of the British troops being evacuated from the beaches. He was captured by the Germans and, after a long and difficult journey, arrived at Stalag 8B, a work camp in Silesia. That part of eastern Europe contained many work camps connected with mines and sugar beet factories; Mr. Harding was employed by Siemens on construction work. In those camps, prisoners of war were expected to work. They worked in what Mr. Harding and people who shared his experiences regard as slave labour conditions.
Mr. Harding is an extremely tough man, with a remarkable spirit for one of his age and experience, but apart from having his health permanently broken, one of the legacies of that experience is an inability to talk about what happened, even 53 years later. However, he discovered that he could set down his experiences on paper, which led to his writing a book called "A Cockney Soldier", in which he describes some of those experiences. His tone is matter of fact and not piteous, and his book is all the more powerful for that. He describes years of malnutrition; working in the extreme cold—sometimes minus 25 deg—without heating or protection; and extremely dangerous conditions of work in which colleagues were mutilated or killed because of the absence of even minimal safeguards.
Mr. Harding also describes what can only be called cruel punishments. In his camp, fainting was regarded as a form of malingering and those who fainted because of malnutrition were punished. One of his friends who could not rise from his bed because of the weakness caused by fever was punished by being locked in a room for three days; he was dead when the door was finally unlocked. I do not want to go into the details, but it is important to establish the facts, because the crux of the argument about the treatment of those former prisoners of war is whether they were looked after within the terms of the Geneva convention.
I appreciate that the concept of compensation has changed to a remarkable extent since the second world war. Compensation is now paid for problems that sometimes appear frivolous. I would not describe stress at work as frivolous, but large compensation payments have

been made to people who have suffered experiences that are not remotely comparable to those that were suffered by Mr. Harding and his fellow prisoners of war. I was too young to be called up by the Army, let alone to have served during the war, so I cannot understand the depth of those men's experiences, but they were clearly far more serious than many of the things that we now regard as being worthy of compensation.
How has compensation for POWs been dealt with? There was a welcome breakthrough a few months ago, when the Government accepted the principle of compensation for Japanese POWs.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Dr. Cable: There was a welcome development when the Government decided to award compensation to Japanese POWs. Two constituents of mine have already received their cheques and are very appreciative; they feel that the campaign was extremely successful, and they welcomed the role that the Government played in it. However, a price Was paid. I am not sure why it was felt tactically necessary by those campaigning for Japanese POWs, but they were always at great pains to stress that they were not trying to create a precedent for POWs in Europe. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke on that subject in an Adjournment debate on 6 June. He said:
I do not accept that such payments"—
for Japanese POWS—
might lead to other claims by ex-POWs, which, I suspect, has been one reason why the Government have been reluctant to come to a favourable decision and to concede on the issue. What other claims would there be from former POWs? I have no reason to believe those held by the Germans … are pressing such claims."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 30WH.]
That is simply not true; prisoners of war held by the Germans have been pressing their claims for some time. A price was therefore paid for achieving victory on behalf of the Japanese POWs.
A parallel development is the establishment of a compensation scheme for forced labourers by the German authorities. In Germany, the principle has been established that German companies that benefited from forced labour should contribute to a compensation fund. That is a rather important philosophical principle, as those companies accepted that the profits earned from forced labour contributed substantially to their ability to invest after the war and their subsequent strengths. They have therefore accepted that they had a clear moral obligation. Compensation is now being paid under that scheme to 1 million former forced labourers, who have each received between £2,000 and £5,000. An international agency for migration is helping all those who were subject to forced labour or slave labour to receive the compensation to which they are entitled under the scheme.
Until recently, POWs were exempt and were not entitled to claim under the scheme, but that has recently been relaxed and POWs are being allowed to claim, provided that they can claim that they were subject to concentration camp conditions, which is a rather narrow criterion that, so far, has excluded most of the British POWs. In some ways, the position is anomalous and


unfortunate, as British POWs working in German forced labour camps now appear to be the only remaining group that has had no recognition at all. Other POWs have been compensated. The Americans have a scheme whereby their POWs are paid the equivalent of $1 or $2.50 a day, depending on the type of work that they did during forced labour in the second world war. The Germans have a scheme for former members of the Wehrmacht.
British POWs, however, have been left at the tender mercy of the benefits system and the disablement compensation system, which have often been extremely severe. They have therefore been left in a singular, exposed position, and considerable ill feeling has resulted. Why have British POWs in Germany been left out? That is the core of the issue. The argument has been advanced—by the Government, previous Governments and the British Legion, which has been ambivalent on the issue—that, unlike the Japanese POWs, those in Germany were subject to the Geneva convention. Of course, POWs themselves regard that as incorrect. Mr. Allan, who leads the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association, confronted that argument and said:
This is not true and well the MOD and other veteran organisations know this.
It is a matter of considerable debate.
Why were British POWs considered to be subject to the Geneva convention? First, it was believed that prisoners in German camps were not subject to the same degree of brutality as those in Japanese camps. The death rate was certainly lower and it is probably true, on average, that the degree of brutality was less. When we assess the extent to which the spirit of the convention was observed, it comes down to degrees of brutality. Some of the men, including those whom I am representing, experienced extremely brutal conditions, as bad as any in the second world war.
Secondly, the British Government have taken the view that German prisoners who were kept in the UK as prisoners of war were also required to work, and were therefore subject to forced labour. It may be unhelpful to question the position of British POWs in Germany, as we operated a comparable system in the UK. That comes down to an assessment of whether German POWs in the UK were treated with anything like the same degree of severity as British POWs in Germany. Clearly, that is a value judgment and the evidence comes from people who were alive at the time. Without being in any way anti-German or unfair to the Germans, it could plausibly be argued that, qualitatively, there was a big difference in the way in which POWs were treated.
Thirdly, it was argued that British POWs in Germany were paid. They were paid what was called Lagergeld—vouchers that could be exchanged for goods. When one reads the accounts of prisoners at that time, it becomes clear that that was often a mockery. Mr. Harding describes how, in his camp, he would present Lagergeld at the counters of the so-called shop, and he would be offered women's hair nets or razor blades without razors. It was used as a wind-up—an insult. It was not exchange in any meaningful sense.
Many of the men had Lagergeld that was worthless and could not be exchanged. They were not paid in any meaningful sense. They suffered the double indignity and the double financial disadvantage that their pay was docked in the UK, because it was assumed that the German authorities were paying them. The National

Ex-Prisoner of War Association has asserted that the British Government were paid about £1 million at the end of the second world war by the Germans in lieu of the discrepancy between the payments. That payment was never made to the prisoners of war; it was simply absorbed in the Treasury. The association calculates that at present prices, that represents a loss of £120 million. The matter could usefully be investigated.
Many of the prisoners of war who were subject to that experience felt that they were shafted by the Geneva convention. The convention has been used as a pretext for not offering them the recognition and compensation that they deserve. Many of them blame successive British Governments for the failure to take their case sufficiently seriously.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether anything can be done at this stage. I realise that very few of the men are left alive, and probably not many of them are in a fit state to enjoy any compensation, should they receive it. We are speaking of very small numbers of people and very small sums of money. It is no longer a Treasury issue, but an issue of recognition, dignity and compensating people for real inhumanity. That is the spirit of it. I suspect that there is probably no more than one former POW in any constituency, so it is not a big political issue, but it is important for it to be recognised.
I suggest two ways in which the Minister may be able to help us forward. The first would be for him to examine with the Germans, not in an acrimonious or accusatory manner, the way in which their POW compensation scheme is operating, and for him to make the case to them that many of the British POWs could be helped to apply under that scheme. Through the good offices of the Foreign Office and the Minister, it may be possible to make progress in that direction.
The Under-Secretary could also pursue the matter without involving the Germans simply by treating the problem as a purely British one. On that basis, he could consider the issue of pay that was docked during the second world war but was never paid to the men. I do not know whether it was absorbed by the Treasury or what happened in the fiscal arrangements of 1945, but an injustice was clearly done. Purely at a UK level, some recompense and recognition could be given to the men in view of what occurred, so I ask him to consider as sympathetically as he can this dwindling but symbolically very important group of men.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), for their courtesy in allowing me to say a few words.
When I heard the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham, I rushed to the Chamber. As he said, the subject of the debate relates to his constituent, but I suppose that it relates also to a few hundred other British ex-service men, one of whom I represent. John Stevens was in the Royal Navy and went down with HMS Gloucester off Crete, during the battle of Crete. I followed with him many a time the traumatic march that he made across Europe in appalling circumstances. He eventually ended up in the Farben chemical works, which was situated on the Auschwitz campus. He endured precisely the same problems as the hon. Gentleman described in relation to his constituent.
It has troubled me to know that, before I was a Member of Parliament. John Stevens exhaustively raised the matter with my predecessors, although I do not criticise their stewardship of it. I think that the problem was also raised with Malcolm Rifkind, among others, and that no satisfaction was gained.
I speak only to buttress what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will assure us that he will revisit the issue. No doubt, he has his brief, but I hope that he will be prepared to indicate to the men that he is prepared to consider them again, perhaps individually. The conditions of my constituent's imprisonment and those of the hon. Gentleman's constituent demonstrably did not fit in with the Geneva convention. It simply did not happen. He is now a very sick man. I hope that, in view of what has been said, my hon. Friend will be prepared to consider the broad picture, as well as the position of my constituent and that of the hon. Member for Twickenham.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate on behalf of his constituent. I was, of course, happy to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
The question of compensation for those held as prisoners of war is a matter in which a number of Departments are concerned. My reply will cover issues that also fall within the areas of responsibility of my colleagues, particularly at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and at the Department of Social Security.
Attention in the House has recently focused almost exclusively on the circumstances surrounding the experiences of our service men who were detained in Japanese hands during the second world war—a matter that we addressed in detail last November. That discussion is recorded at columns 157 to 190 of the Official Report for 7 November 2000, when I announced the Government's decision to make an ex gratia payment in recognition of the collective experience of these men while they were detained.
In the European and middle eastern theatres, the reverses of the early years of the war—in particular, the campaign in France and Flanders in 1940 and the later defeats in Greece, Crete and the western desert—resulted in a considerable number of our service men becoming prisoners of war of the Germans and their Italian partners. When Italy surrendered to the allies in the autumn of 1943, although some of our service men were able to escape from captivity and rejoin our forces as they advanced, many more were quickly detained by the German troops in Italy and then moved to camps in Germany and elsewhere in areas under German control.
Although the tide of war had swung decisively in the allies' favour, there were still instances, most notably after Arnhem, when a considerable number of British service men became prisoners of war, so that by the end of the war, a total of 142,319 British service men had been reported as detained at some stage by the Germans or their Italian partners.
As I said in my statement to the House last November:
The Government recognise that many UK citizens, both those serving in the armed forces and civilians, have had to endure great hardship at different times and in different circumstances".—[Official Report, 7 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 160.]
I would like to repeat that comment now and apply it specifically to our service men detained in German hands. It is clear from personal accounts and the official records that conditions for those detained by the Germans were often less than ideal. That is especially true of those who were still prisoners of war in the last winter and spring of the war, when the breakdown in the German administrative system, the Germans' enforced movement of prisoners of war away from the advancing allied forces to prevent their liberation, the rigours of the weather and the dangers of the ever-nearing battlefield, made that a particularly hard experience.
However, unlike civilian labourers who were conscripted or otherwise brought into the German labour scheme, the treatment of British service men detained as prisoners of war was protected: it was governed by the 1929 Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, to which Germany was a signatory.
I want to expand on the terms of the Geneva convention because important aspects are sometimes overlooked when that subject, especially the aspect of work for the captor, is considered. Under the 1929 Geneva convention, which was in force during the second world war, prisoners of war of other ranks were obliged to undertake work for their captors; the latter were usually called the "detaining power." The convention required that the work should not be directly related to warlike or military activity. However, many other types of work, including mining and work in quarries, were permissible. Almost all the belligerent powers, including Britain and the USA, made use of that facility, and put enemy personnel held as prisoners of war to work on a range of tasks.
I know that many prisoners of war were, and remain unhappy about some of the tasks they had to carry out and their general conditions. However, the report on prisoner of war matters, which the Foreign Office produced in 1950, concluded that,
there were few, if any, really clear breaches
of the Geneva convention relating to the employment of British prisoners of war in unhealthy and dangerous work.
Although there were clearly instances of conditions in individual camps or working detachments that were less than ideal, through lack of facilities or because of the attitude of the guards or civilian overseers, those working detachments and camps were subject to inspection by both the neutral protecting power, Switzerland, and the International Red Cross. Those inspections meant that improper treatment or lack of proper facilities did not escape notice, censure and demands for remedial action wherever possible.
The contemporary reports of those inspecting teams demonstrate that they were able to talk at first hand with the POWs' "man of confidence", medical officers or personnel to verify their perspective on the state of affairs against that put forward by the detaining power. Further, on re-inspecting various locations, improvements could often be seen in areas highlighted in earlier reports.
Some former prisoners of war also raise the issue of the inadequacy of then rations. It is accepted that the rations provided by the Germans were based on the lower level


of those of a German civilian rather than that of their soldiers and, as the war turned against Germany, the quality of foodstuffs became even poorer.
However, steps were taken to ensure that, while detained, British service men received Red Cross parcels of food and other "comforts" from the UK, which were valuable additions to the sometimes limited rations provided by the enemy. The Government played their part in supporting the Red Cross in that activity, while ensuring that they did nothing to encourage the Germans to evade their responsibilities under the convention to feed the prisoners of war by relying on the provision of such foodstuffs by Britain and its allies.
Of course, while detained, British service men continued to receive their service pay from the British Government, usually credited to their home pay account. When they carried out work for the detaining power outside their military skills, as required by the Geneva convention, they were entitled to a certain amount of "working pay" from the Germans. In general, it is clear from contemporary records that that requirement was met by the Germans, the pay usually being credited to the prisoner of war working camp account or issued as camp money, the so-called Lagergeld. Any remaining credit balance in this German account was redeemable from the British authorities on the POWs' repatriation at the end of the war.
It would be wrong for me to suggest that the scheme of inspections by the protecting power and the Red Cross, coupled with protests from Britain, were able to remedy all the shortcomings of the Germans' treatment of our service men at their hands. However, it is clear from the contemporary reports by the protecting power and the Red Cross who visited POW camps, including POW working detachments, that the conditions in such camps in the European theatre and the general treatment of British and Commonwealth POWs in such circumstances were in no way comparable to those of civilian personnel who were forced by the Germans to undertake labour tasks, and clearly in no way comparable to that of slave labourers in the German concentration camps and their outlying work camps.
That view is supported not only by the contemporary reports from the inspection teams and from debriefings of our ex-prisoners of war, but by the hearings of one of the allied war crimes courts which considered the matter of the treatment of labourers at the IG Farben factory near Auschwitz. A POW working detachment, held in a routine POW working camp, also worked in the factory area. This brought the prisoners of war into contact with slave workers from the Nazi concentration camp nearby at Auschwitz. However, the court having heard the evidence, including testimony from ex-prisoners of war, found that the British POWs were generally treated better than other workers in all respects. [Interruption] I accept that that does not mean that they were treated well. However, they were treated differently and in a different order from civilians or detainees in a concentration camp.
During the Nazi regime and the second world war, approximately 8 million people in German-controlled territory were subjected to forced labour under, for the most part, inhumane conditions. The German Government and German companies who used such labour have therefore created a new fund to compensate such

individuals. Claims by former slave and forced labourers now living in the United Kingdom are being administered by the International Organisation for Migration.
The British service men detained by the Germans do not fall within the category of slave labourers, and the German authorities have made it clear that former prisoners of war do not qualify under the German forced labour compensation fund. While we accept that as a general point for the reasons that I have explained, we would not consider that claims could not be presented by British service personnel, but it would be remiss of me to encourage the belief that they might succeed. I would add that a small number of British service men detained in Nazi concentration camps received compensation under a special fund paid for by the Germans in the 1960s to victims of Nazi ideology.
The Geneva convention itself did not specify any penalties on the detaining power for ill-treatment of prisoners of war or the imposition of bad conditions. We in the United Kingdom sought to address and deter ill-treatment and actions that clearly and wilfully breached the conventions and that broke the laws of war by bringing the individuals thought to be responsible to justice before war crimes courts.
Further, as hon. Members will recall, it has been the long-standing policy of successive British Administrations not to compensate service men for the fact of detention as a prisoner of war, but rather to seek to help them through war disability pensions and appropriate health care where their health has suffered as a result of military service, which includes any period spent as a POW.
I must remind hon. Members, as I told the House in November, that we believe that it is generally accepted that while endorsing this policy, the collective experience of those of our service men who were detained by the Japanese during the second world war was unique. That is reflected in the fact that about 25 per cent. of those prisoners of war in Japanese hands died while in captivity. I am happy to say, while not in any war minimising the anguish and problems of captivity, that the equivalent death rate for those detained in European camps in the second world war was about 5 per cent.
It is because of the uniqueness of these circumstances that we instituted the ex gratia payment for British groups formerly detained by the Japanese which I announced last year. I regret to say that we have, however, no plans to make any such payment to former prisoners of war from other theatres from the second world war or from other wars.
I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to the hon. Member for Twickenham. He has raised his constituent's point with great passion and sincerity. If I was presented with any new evidence, I would be very happy to consider it. Indeed, because of the interest in such historical matters, I frequently study such issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock quite rightly points out that there is great interest in such matters, and—who knows?—someone might turn something up. However, the record stands that this was very carefully looked into during the contemporary period immediately after the war, and I see no reason to change that position at present.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock.